Preamble

The House met at half-past Two o'clock

PRAYERS

[Mr. SPEAKER in the Chair]

Mr. Speaker: With the agreement of the House, and in accordance with present practice, I propose to call the First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means to move together all nine of his motions for unopposed return.

Return respecting application of Standing Order No. 30 (Closure of Debate) during Session 1974–75 (1) in the House and in Committee of the whole House, under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5
6


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before House or Committee when claimed
Whether in House or Committee
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the Chair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

and (2) in the Standing Commitees under the following heads:—

1
2
3
4
5


Date when Closure claimed, and by whom
Question before Committee when claimed
Whether assent given to Motion or withheld by the Chair
Assent withheld because, in the opinion of the hair, a decision would shortly be arrived at without that Motion
Result of Motion and, if a Division, Numbers for and against.

—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.

DELEGATED LEGISLATION

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Instruments considered in Session 1974–75 by the Joint Committee and the Select Committee on Statutory Instruments respectively pursuant to their orders of reference, showing in each case the numbers of Instruments subject to the different forms of Parliamentary procedure and of those within the committees' orders of reference for which no Parliamentary procedure is prescribed by statute, and the numbers drawn to the special attention of the House or of both Houses distinguishing the ground in the committees' orders of reference upon which such attention was invited; and of the numbers of Instruments considered by a Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments and by the House respectively, in session 1974–75 showing the number where the question on the proceedings relating thereto was put forthwith under

MOTIONS FOR UNOPPOSED RETURNS

ADJOURNMENT MOTIONS UNDER STANDING ORDER NO. 9

Return ordered,

Return of Motions for Adjournment under Standing Order No. 9, showing the date of such Motion, the name of the Member proposing the specific and important matter and the result of any Division taken thereon, during Session 1974–75.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

CLOSURE OF DEBATE (STANDING ORDER NO. 30)

Return ordered,

Standing Order No. 73A(5).—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PRIVATE BILLS AND PRIVATE BUSINESS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders introduced into this House and brought from the House of Lords, and of Acts passed in Session 1974–75:

Of all Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which in Session 1974–75 were reported on by Committees on Opposed Bills or by Committees nominated partly by the House and partly by the Committee of Selection, together with the names of the selected Members who served on each Committee; the first and also the last day of the Sitting of each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat;


the number of days on which each selected Member served; the number of days occupied by each Bill in Committee; the Bills of which the preambles were reported to have been proved; the Bills of which the Preambles were reported to have been not proved; and, in the case of Bills for confirming Provisional Orders, whether the Provisional Orders ought or ought not to be confirmed:

Of all Private Bills and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders which, in Session 1974–75 were referred by the Committee of Selection to the Committee on Unopposed Bills, together with the names of the Members who served on the Committee; the number of days on which the Committee sat; and the number of days on which each Member attended:

And, of the number of Private Bills, Hybrid Bills, and Bills for confirming Provisional Orders withdrawn or not proceeded with by the parties, those Bills being specified which were referred to Committees and dropped during the sittings of the Committee.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

PUBLIC BILLS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Public Bills, distinguishing Government from other Bills, introduced into this House, or brought from the House of Lords, during Session 1974–75 showing:

(1) the number which received the Royal Assent, and
(2) the number which did not receive the Royal Assent, indicating those which were introduced into but not passed by this House, those passed by this House but not by the House of Lords, those passed by the House of Lords but not by this House, those passed by both Houses but Amendments not agreed to; and distinguishing the stages at which such Bills were dropped, postponed or rejected in either House of Parliament, or the stages which such Bills had reached by the time of the Prorogation or Dissolution.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SELECT COMMITTEES

Return ordered,

Return of the Select Committees appointed in Session 1974–75 with the Sub-Committees appointed by them; the names of the Members appointed to serve on each, and of the Chairman of each; the number of days each met, and the number of days each Member attended; the number of meetings held by each Select Committee and Sub-Committee, and the number of meetings each Member attended; the total expenses of the attendances of witnesses at each Select Committee and Sub-Committee; and the total number of Members who served on Select Committees; together with so much of the same information as is relevant to the Chairmen's Panel and the Court of Referees.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SITTINGS OF THE HOUSE AND BUSINESS OF SUPPLY

Return ordered,

Return of (1) the days on which the House sat in Session 1974–75, stating for each day the day of the month and day of the week, the hour of the meeting, and the hour of the adjournment; and the total number of hours occupied in the sittings of the House, and the average time; and showing the number of hours on which the House sat each day, and the number of hours after the time appointed for the interruption of business; and (2) the days on which Business of Supply was considered.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

STANDING COMMITTEES

Return ordered,

Return for Session 1974–75, of (1) the total number and the names of all Members (including and distinguishing Chairmen) who have been appointed to serve on one or more of the Standing Committees showing, with regard to each of such Members, the number of sittings to which he was summoned and at which he was present; (2) the number of Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by all and by each of the Standing Committees, the number of sittings of each Committee and the titles of all Bills, Estimates, Matters and Statutory Instruments considered by a Committee, distinguishing where a Bill was a Government Bill or was brought from the House of Lords, and showing in the case of each Bill, Estimate, Matter and Statutory Instrument, the particular Committee by whom it was considered, the number of sittings at which it was considered and the number of Members present at each of those sittings.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

SPECIAL PROCEDURE ORDERS

Return ordered,

Return of the number of Special Procedure Orders presented in Session 1974–75; the number withdrawn; the number against which Petitions or copies of Petitions were deposited; the number of Petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively considered by the Chairmen; the number of such Petitions certified by the Chairmen as proper to be received, and the number certified by them as being petitions of General Objection and for Amendment respectively; the number referred to a Joint Committee of both Houses; the number reported with Amendments by a Joint Committee, and the number in relation to which a Joint Committee reported that the Order be not approved; and the number of Bills introduced for the confirmation of Special Procedure Orders:

Of Special Procedure Orders which, in Session 1974–75, were referred to a Joint Committee, together with the names of the Commons Members who served on each Committee; the number of days on which each Committee sat; and the number of days on which each such Member attended.—[First Deputy Chairman of Ways and Means.]

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTLAND

Fishing

Mr. Sproat: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the latest situation in the fishing industry.

The Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. William Ross): The decline in the number of days spent at sea in total catch, gross earnings, and average prices appears to be levelling off, although there are naturally seasonal and local variations in this trend. Average prices for the main species at the major ports of Aberdeen and Peter-head rose between July and September, and were higher than in the same months of 1974. The factors affecting the inshore industry and the deep-sea industry are similar.

Mr. Sproat: Despite the appreciable gloss that the Secretary of State is attempting to put on the situation, is he not aware that there is great and growing uncertainty in the fishing industry about limits, EEC policy and what will happen when the subsidies come to an end, because we suspect there will be even more tie-ups? Does the Secretary of State realise that his right hon. Friends are using the word "restructuring" very frequently and that it is sending shivers down the collective spine of the fishing industry? Will the right hon. Gentleman come clean on what exactly is the Government's plan for the fishing industry and especially on what size fleet they want?

Mr. Ross: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman appreciates that the question of limits is not purely for the British Government. It is a matter for the Law of the Sea Conference and the EEC. Until these matters are decided, we cannot make sensible decisions about the restructuring of the fleet. The hon. Gentleman knows that there are matters even more complicated than that. I understand that a meeting is taking place in London in respect of the fishing in the north-east Atlantic. That will be of great importance to certain sections of our fishing industry, for it will be dealing

with where the fish are and the whole subject of conservation. The hon. Gentleman over-simplifies the position when he suggests that somehow or other we can produce solutions just like that.

Mr. Robert Hughes: I accept that the situation is not simple. However, does my right hon. Friend accept that sooner or later—sooner would be preferable—we should have a White Paper on the future of the fishing industry and setting out the industry's problems in a comprehensive manner? We could then proceed towards a comprehensive solution.

Mr. Ross: Yes, it is worth considering that. There will certainly be statements and debates on this matter, but we shall need to reach decisions on issues arising from the international negotiations now taking place. Indeed, some of those negotiations are very serious.

Mr. Watt: Does the Minister agree that one of the most urgent needs is for conservation of fishing stocks? Can he assure the House that he and his colleagues will be taking a firm line at the North-East Atlantic Fisheries Conference?

Mr. Ross: Yes, I can give the hon. Gentleman that assurance. I met representatives of the Scottish fishing industry a fortnight or three weeks ago. They stressed what the hon. Gentleman has said about conservation. Their view, probably understandably, was that we were good in all aspects of conservation, including our gear and where we fished, but other people were not quite so good.

Mr. Sillars: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the additional concern in the industry about reports of a new dispute with Iceland? Will my right hon. Friend comment on those reports?

Mr. Ross: I understand that there have been some reports today. It is important to bear in mind that negotiations are in progress for a new agreement with Iceland and that my right hon. Friend the Minister of State for Foreign and Commonwealth Affairs will be going to Iceland this weekend. I hope that there will not be a dispute, but the Government are taking precautionary measures to ensure that British vessels can be protected if that should become necessary. These measures have already been widely reported.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: In the light of the industry's demands, stated from both sides of the House, that the Government sit down with the industry and work out a long-term policy, and given that the Minister has said today that he is not prepared at this stage to do that, surely it would have been prudent to continue the assistance to the industry during the period of uncertainty until the new policy was worked out. Why have the Government taken this decision in advance of covering the grants to the industry as from 31st December this year?

Mr. Ross: I do not want to remind the hon. Gentleman of who stopped the grants to the industry, because he should know something about that. When certain circumstances arose concerning costs, especially fuel costs, the Government introduced grants on a temporary basis to allow the industry to become accustomed to the new circumstances. That was for a certain period, and we have continued it for a further six months. I think that the hon. Gentleman was unfair about what we have already done for the industry.

Mary Erskine School

Mr. Robin F. Cook: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he has reached a decision on the application by Lothian Regional Council for borrowing consent to purchase Mary Erskine School.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will give an up-to-date statement on his negotiations with the Lothian Regional Council and the Merchant Company regarding the future of the Mary Erskine School.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Frank McElhone): I am still considering a request from the regional council for an increase in its capital investment allocation to enable it to make this purchase, but I am not yet ready to announce a decision.

Mr. Cook: Is my hon. Friend aware that if a decision is not reached in the next month, there will be serious difficulties for the regional council in making preparations for the autumn 1976 intake? Will he bear in mind that many who

welcomed the policy when it was announced last spring nevertheless said that there would be clear capital consequences for Edinburgh? Will he also bear in mind that those who wish the policy well and want it to succeed hope that the money necessary to make it work will be made available?

Mr. McElhone: I fully appreciate my hon. Friend's concern in this matter. Substantial extra public expenditure will be involved if the proposal to acquire the school is accepted. That decision cannot be taken lightly. Relevant factors, such as the probable number of pupils transferring to the public sector, the distribution of those pupils, and the capacity of existing school provision, need careful assessment. However, I shall make a decision as soon as possible.

Lord James Douglas-Hamilton: Will the Minister do everything within his power to try to end the uncertainty being experienced by pupils, teachers, and parents connected with this school, which is in my constituency? Will he bear in mind that if the £2,750,000 for the purchase of Mary Erskine School has to be taken out of the financial allocation already made for education provision for Edinburgh, there will be intense resentment throughout the capital and it will be regarded as being very unfair?

Mr. McElhone: I fully understand the hon. Gentleman's concern about this matter. Indeed, he has sent me a letter and consulted me about it. The buying of the Mary Erskine School has implications for other grant-aided schools in Scotland. Apart from the £2·75 million which is involved, an extra £600,000 will be required for its conversion to a co-education school.

Mr. Reid: In the negotiations for grant-aided schools, will the Minister take steps to ensure that parents with children currently attending or about to attend such schools are consulted before any final decision is reached? Does he agree that too many negotiations to date, with special reference to Dollar Academy, have been conducted behind closed doors?

Mr. McElhone: That is a different question. If the hon. Gentleman will put down a Question on that matter, I shall attempt to answer it.

Mr. Rifkind: Is the Minister aware that the acquisition of this school by the regional council, although welcome, will not provide a single additional school place in Edinburgh? Does he accept that it would be more sensible, in the interests of education in the east of Scotland, for the Government to cease their petty, puny and pathetic persecution of grant-aided schools and to concentrate on the requirements necessary to improve education in Scotland?

Mr. McElhone: No, Sir.

Steel Houses

Mr. Thompson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is now in a position to advise local authorities on the treatment required to make wind and water-tight Weir steel houses which have deteriorated.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Hugh D. Brown): My Department has written to the seven district councils which own houses of this type advising them on remedial measures and improvements.

Mr. Thompson: Will the hon. Gentleman accept my congratulations on providing a more positive answer to a Question than I have been receiving of late from the Scottish Office? Will he also accept the thanks of an elderly couple, over 80 years of age, who live at Kildrochat, near Stranraer, who for several years have had to put up with rain leaking in every time it rains, and it rains quite often in Galloway? Will he take steps to help the Wigtown District Council to carry out these repairs?

Mr. Brown: I know that houses usually leak only when it rains. It is so unusual to receive congratulations from the Scottish National Party that I am a bit taken aback. If the hon. Gentleman and his colleagues had asked the appropriate Questions in the past, they would have received just as helpful replies. I am never sure in which particular area they are playing at community politics.
There is a real problem here. We have written to all the district authorities. We can give them technical advice. The hon. Gentleman will be aware that the SSHA, which owns the bulk of the Weir houses, has a programme going which could take care of all of them.

Mr. Monro: Will the Minister congratulate the SNP on returning to the House of Commons after being wind and water-tight and tucked up in bed last night and not involved in the debate? Does the hon. Gentleman accept that this is a serious problem for those who have lived in these houses for a long period? Steel houses are now becoming very expensive to heat, with the cost of electricity and other fuels, and any help he can give to district authorities will be warmly welcomed.

Mr. Brown: I meant to refer to the SNP not doing very well today despite having been in bed all night. It will be very expensive to make the houses conform to modern standards. Some inside improvements—in kitchens, toilets, and so on—will cost between £8,000 and £9,000. I should imagine that, subject to technical advice, improvement of the outer walls will help to reduce the need for expensive heating.

Housing (Troon)

Mr. Lambie: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland why he instructed officials at the Scottish Development Department to inform Kyle and Carrick District Council that future housing needs in Troon be met by Irvine Development Corporation.

Mr. Hugh D. Brown: The district council has merely been asked to provide information supporting the need for 120 houses which it proposes to build in Troon.

Mr. Lambie: I thank my hon. Friend for that reply. Is he aware that many people in Ayrshire are beginning to wonder who is running the Scottish Office and its policies—civil servants or Ministers? Does my hon. Friend realise that Irvine Development Corporation has a statutory duty to provide houses only for incoming workers and that district councils have a statutory duty to build houses for local people? Will my hon. Friend guarantee that an immediate go-ahead will be given for the 124 houses at Logan Drive, Troon, for local Troon people?

Mr. Brown: I am sorry to disappoint my hon. Friend by replying to this Question, because I know that he likes to have a bash at the Secretary of State for Scotland.
There will be no difficulty about giving approval to the proposals from the Cunninghame District Council, provided that the price is right and that normal contractual procedures have been followed. But there is a real problem here regarding the Irvine Development Corporation and the Cunninghame District Council. I hope that my hon. Friend will use his undoubted creative talents to have a constructive dialogue with the new town corporation and the Cunninghame District Council.

Mr. Sillars: Is my hon. Friend aware that we are talking about Kyle and Carrick District Council, not Cunninghame District Council? Can be explain why, if people from Troon are to be housed in the Irvine New Town area, Troon should not be placed in Cunninghame District Council?

Mr. Brown: I recollect that matter being discussed at great length and my hon. Friend getting into trouble about his suggestions about it. I referred to Cunninghame because Irvine New Town is within the Cunninghame district, but obviously I should have included Kyle and Carrick. If it includes anybody else, I hope that they will have a constructive dialogue with all concerned.

Police

Mr. Robertson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on police recruitment in Scotland.

The Under-Secretary of State for Scotland (Mr. Harry Ewing): Substantial net gains in police strength have been recorded in the first three quarters of 1975. Although special factors have been at work in this period, the general trend is strongly upwards and I regard that as most satisfactory.

Mr. Robertson: Would my hon. Friend care to publish those figures? I think that all of us would be interested. Will he assure the House that present establishments will be maintained and that he will review establishments with a view to increasing the numbers of policemen? Undoubtedly the one fact that stands out is that there are not enough policemen to cope with the problems with which they are supposed to deal.

Mr. Ewing: I think the House will be interested to know that the net gain over the period that I have discussed was 448 officers. This is the biggest increase since records were first kept, and I agree with my hon. Friend that this reflects great credit on the present administration—[Interruption.] If the hon. Member for North Angus and Mearns (Mr. Buchanan-Smith) wants to try to protect his inefficiency when he was responsible for the job which I now do, I shall be interested to hear his defence.
The review of establishments was started in 1971, and in the course of it 1,899 police officer and 1,546 civilian posts were added. The review was completed in 1974, and against that background I am bound to tell my hon. Friend that I have no plans for a further review of establishments in Scottish police forces.

Mr. Monro: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that I am disappointed that he will not further review the establishments of police forces, particularly of those forces that have to carry out exceptional tasks that are disportionate to the needs of the region? I am referring particularly to police traffic patrols on the A74. Will the hon. Gentleman consider giving special financial and establishment help to those forces that carry out this special work?

Mr. Ewing: I think that it would have been more in keeping with the tone of the Question and Answer if the hon. Gentleman had given the Government thanks for the special assistance that we are giving to the Dumfries Constabulary in respect of the special tasks that it has to carry out. We have had an assurance that the tasks which have to be carried out in respect of the A74 are well within the capabilities of the force concerned. We have had no approaches on this matter.

Mrs. Bain: Can the hon. Gentleman say how many of the new recruits to police forces have been women, and what action he has taken to ensure that women are represented at all levels through the forces involved in law enforcement in Scotland?

Mr. Ewing: I could not give the figures without notice, but when we talk about establishments we talk about male and


female officers. There is no question of females being recruited specifically to take the place of male members of the establishment, or of males being recruited to take the place of females.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that I was informed only last week that there were not enough men on the ground to undertake the responsibility of dealing with a troublesome situation in my constituency? Can my hon. Friend say to what extent the approved establishment is under strength in the Strathclyde Region?

Mr. Ewing: I could not give the figures for the Strathclyde Region, but it is fairly obvious to the House and to all concerned that the Strathclyde Region force is the one force in Scotland that is substantially under establishment. When I talk about its being under establishment, I should add that the figure for vacancies in Scotland is below 1,000 for the first time in the history of the police forces in Scotland, so the trend is moving in the right direction and Strathclyde is benefiting to the same extent as the other forces.

Advance Factories

Mr. David Steel: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make available grants to local authorities to adapt existing properties which are vacant as part of a local advance factory programme.

The Minister of State, Scottish Office (Mr. Bruce Millan): There is no provision for grants to be paid to local authorities to build factories or adapt existing buildings in advance of specific demand. Regional development grants under Part I of the Industry Act 1972 can be paid when it is demonstrated that the premises qualify, but this can be determined only when an occupant has been found.

Mr. Steel: Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that there is a gap here in our otherwise excellent provision for attracting new industry? Is he aware that in towns such as Selkirk and Hawick, where both people and buildings have been declared redundant, the quickest and cheapest way of attracting new employment is to adapt existing buildings where suitable? I think that some change in the legislation is required to enable

that to happen, because it cannot be done at the moment.

Mr. Millan: I doubt whether I agree that that is enough. I recollect that this matter was debated during the passage of the 1972 legislation. Other agencies are available to provide advance factories, and I have arranged for officials of my Department to discuss with local authorities concerned whether we can help them. I appreciate the points that the local authorities are making, and that what they would like to do is a good idea, but the legislation does not allow me to help in the way they wish.

Mr. Canavan: In the next allocation of advance factories, will my right hon. Friend have regard to the needs of Kilsyth, where the unemployment percentage is among the highest in Scotland and where the local authority is doing everything possible to try to accommodate another advance factory?

Mr. Millan: I shall have regard to the needs of Kilsyth and to those of a number of other areas about which I have received representations.

Scottish Development Agency

Mr. Crawford: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many meetings the Board of the Scottish Development Agency will hold during any given year.

Mr. William Ross: This will be for the Agency itself to determine.

Mr. Crawford: Will the right hon. Gentleman direct the attention of the SDA Board to Chrysler and inform it that the SNP wishes totally to dissociate itself from the views of the Conservative Party on this matter as enunciated in the House yesterday by the hon. Member for Mid-Oxon (Mr. Hurd), who said that no help should be given to Chrysler? Does the right hon. Gentleman agree that one of the best ways to assist Chrysler in Scotland is to inject into the company two or three days' revenue from Scottish oil, worth £20 million, to enable it to introduce a new model at Linwood to safeguard jobs? The right hon. Gentleman will be aware that the SNP has discussed this subject with Chrysler shop stewards.

Mr. Ross: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not his party's industrial


adviser. The SDA is the subject of the Question. I think that the hon. Gentleman knows that the Bill is to receive its Royal Assent this week. The hon. Gentleman supported the Conservative Party when we were discussing proposals by the House of Lords and that fact may have denied us the right to move in certain cases. I had hoped that the hon. Gentleman would dissociate himself from the statement made yesterday by his hon. Friend, which was rather narrow, mean and nasty. I have nothing to add to what the Prime Minister said yesterday on the subject of Chrysler.

Dr. M. S. Miller: On the question of the work of the SDA, will my right hon Friend ensure that, notwithstanding that the average weekly wage in Scotland has exceeded the average weekly wage in the United Kingdom as a whole, the work of the Agency will proceed as he and the Government side of the House have planned and produce even more prosperity for Scotland?

Mr. Ross: That is our intention. We think that the Agency will fill a gap and provide help to produce more jobs and modernise Scottish industry. We have serious problems. They may not all be tackled by the SDA, but there is no doubt that the Agency will be a valuable asset, and I very much regret that the actions of the Conservative Party prevented us from putting the measure on the statute book some time ago.

Mr. Buchanan-Smith: What matters to the SDA is the money that it has to spend. Now that the Bill is about to pass into law, will the right hon. Gentleman tell us what the budget of the Agency will be in the first year? Can he also say how much of this budget will be additional to what would have been spent anyway by his Department, by the Department of Industry and by local authorities in the normal course of carrying out their functions?

Mr. Ross: Many of these things might have been relevant to the Bill. Details of the resources to be made available next year will be made known in the usual way through the public expenditure White Paper.

Rate Support Grant

Mr. Gray: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will change the

method of determining rate support grant in Scotland in order to ensure a fairer distribution for residents in the Highland Region.

Mr. Millan: No, Sir. The distribution of grant is already fair to ratepayers in the Highlands.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister consider freezing the transitional formula for the allocation of rate support grant pending the report of the Layfield Committee? Is he aware that in the Highland Region there is a continuing fear of domination from the central belt of Scotland? Is he further aware that that fear has been highlighted by the most recent change in the rate support grant formula?

Mr. Millan: The formula for 1976–77 is under consideration by the working party. As for the current year, although the Highland Region has the highest estimated expenditure per head of the eight regions—namely £165 per head—after specific and needs grant it will have the lowest rate burden per head, only £38, compared with the rest of Scotland where the figure is £66 per head. In face of that factor, I cannot understand how the hon. Gentleman can claim that his region was dealt with unfairly in the current year.

Mr. Russell Johnston: The Minister must know that the Highland Regional Council and the local authorities in the Highlands do not take his view that the new formula is fair. It is disingenuous to quote figures of individual rate burdens. Is not the problem in the large sparsely populated areas that there is a heavy demand on public services?

Mr. Millan: I am talking about the net burden on the ratepayers. It is clear that this burden in the rural areas of Scotland is substantially less than the rate burden per head of ratepayers in urban areas. The purpose of the distribution formula, which last year did not work quite as effectively as I hoped it would, was to redress the balance in favour of urban areas. That will remain my view as to what should be done about the formula in 1976–77.

Mr. Thompson: Is the Minister aware of the concern expressed in Dumfries and Galloway about the rate burden? What does he suggest I say to one constituent


who is a forestry worker with a basic wage of £32 per week, who lives in a Forestry Commission tied house out in the country and who has seen his rates shoot up from £18 last year to £52 this year?

Mr. Millan: Dumfries and Galloway do very well out of the distribution formula, and that region has one of the lowest rate burdens per head of population in Scotland. I would remind the hon. Gentleman that there are low-paid workers in Scottish cities as well as in the rural areas.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Do not the complaints in rural areas about lack of services arise because in the past those areas were badly served by Tory Party councillors, whose main concern was not that of services, but of penny-pinching misery?

Mr. Millan: That is true, and it is also true of some areas in the south-west of Scotland.

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: What consideration has the Minister given to replacing the present rate system with one that will ensure a much fairer distribution of local government expenditure among the general population?

Mr. Millan: A good deal more than the Conservative Government did—because they did nothing at all. We at least appointed the Layfield Committee.

Mr. Gray: In view of the highly unsatisfactory nature of the Minister's reply, I beg to give notice that I shall seek to raise this matter on the Adjournment at the earliest possible moment.

Ninewells Hospital, Dundee

Mr. Gordon Wilson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will hold a public inquiry to investigate the construction of Ninewells Hospital, Dundee.

Mr. McElhone: I shall consider the need for any further inquiry when I have completed the review of the outcome of the 1974 arbitration award and related questions which were mentioned in the reply to the hon. Gentleman on 12th February.—[Vol. 886, c. 133.]

Mr. Wilson: Will the Minister say how long the inter-departmental inquiry will take? Does he not realise that the 11-

year building period has seen the costs of the hospital rise from £10·5 million to almost £25 million? Is it not a matter for considerable concern that the costing system within the Scottish Office allows such things to happen?

Mr. McElhone: I hope that the hon. Gentleman is not blaming me for that. I have been in my present office for only II weeks—[An HON. MEMBER: "That is enough."] It may well be enough, but I share the hon. Gentleman's concern about this project. The system under review raises complex, difficult, technical and legal questions. Furthermore, the Tayside Health Board does not yet have the final account for the scheme. Nevertheless, I do not intend to allow the Ninewells saga to drift on much longer. I have impressed on my Department and on the Tayside Health Board my determination that conclusions should be reached as a matter of urgency.

Mr. Doig: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland how many beds were available in Dundee for surgical patients in National Health Service hospitals prior to the opening of Ninewells Hospital; and how many are available now.

Mr. McElhone: The number of hospital beds in Dundee in all surgical specialties, other than obstetrics and paediatrics, was 401 on 30th September 1973 and, following the opening of Ninewells Hospital, 404 on 31st March 1975.

Mr. Doig: Is that not a small increase following the completion of a large hospital? We find that we have only three more beds net in the city of Dundee following the building of a hospital the size of Ninewells. Is my hon. Friend further aware that people are being asked to come to the hospital for an operation, are then left to sit about all day, and at night are often sent home again because no beds are available? I could give the Minister a list of such complaints, but I hope that I have given him sufficient information to lead him to realise that there is a need to examine the matter further.

Mr. McElhone: I recognise my hon. Friend's interest in the Ninewells scheme. In April 1976 another 17 surgery beds in the Dundee Royal Infirmary will be brought into operation. I shall take up with the Tayside Health Board the situation at Ninewells and people having to


wait around. My hon. Friend will be interested to know that that board's area has 5·26 acute beds per thousand—the highest figure for the whole of Scotland. I have no doubt that this is due in some measure to the persistent and dedicated efforts of my hon. Friend the Member for Dundee, West (Mr. Doig).

Mr. Crawford: Will the Minister ask the Secretary of State for Scotland to reconsider his decision to remove the eye unit from Bridge of Earn to the Ninewells hospital, since practically everybody in Perth is against the move?

Mr. McElhone: I am not aware that everybody in Perth is against the move. I hope that a number of people in Perth will not be against moving the hon. Gentleman at the next election. If he tables a further Question on the matter or writes to me, I shall endeavour to answer him.

Economic Prospects

Mr. Alexander Fletcher: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a further statement about the prospects for the Scottish economy.

Mr. Henderson: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will make a statement on the outlook for the Scottish economy for the next year.

Mr. William Ross: As I told the hon. Member for Dunbartonshire, East (Mrs. Bain) on 15th October, the Scottish economy cannot be insulated from the general fall in the level of economic activity being experienced in all parts of the United Kingdom. The measures announced on 24th September and 31st October, together with the new jobs created as a result of oil activity and the setting up of the Scottish Development Agency, should all play their part in strengthening investment and employment in Scotland.—[Vol. 897, c. 721–2.]

Mr. Fletcher: In the case of the Chrysler company, on which the Minister is unable to comment further today, will he take an early opportunity to warn the Scottish TUC that serious attempts are being made to create strife and hatred among Chrysler workers in Britain as part of the SNP's attempt to break up the United Kingdom?

Mr. Ross: I had something to say on these matters yesterday, and I very much deplore what was said by the SNP, as I am sure did most of the House.

Mr. Henderson: Leaving aside the apparent coalition between the Secretary of State for Scotland and the Conservative Front Bench spokesman, will the right hon. Gentleman suggest how I should explain to unemployed workers in Scotland why there is no appropriation made for them when they see Scottish oil flowing in from the Forties Field and a situation in which Scotland is virtually now self-sufficient in oil terms?

Mr. Ross: I expected the hon. Member for Aberdeenshire, East (Mr. Henderson) to apologise for his party, which has told blatant lies about the situation in Scotland. I would remind him that 63,000 children left school at the last school leaving date and that just over 5,000 of those do not possess a job. However, that does not explain why the SNP representatives are telling the people of Scotland that there is no job for one in five of school leavers. It is time that they stopped misleading the public in Scotland and took a much more constructive view of the economy of the United Kingdom.

Mr. David Steel: I wish to revert to my earlier comment that existing legislation does not allow Government assistance to be given to re-equip redundant factories. Will the Secretary of State give me a guarantee that if local authorities or firms come forward with sensible schemes that would be eligible for aid from the EEC Regional Fund, his Department will give them every assistance?

Mr. Ross: I do not think that that is exactly the same thing. Projects have to be submitted, and are submitted at present, by local authorities to the EEC. It is for the EEC to judge priorities. At present we are encouraging local authorities to put schemes forward, we hope with considerable success, as we did with the advance factory programme, to which a fair amount of publicity has been given.

Mr. Buchan: Is my right hon. Friend aware of the anger in Scotland because of attempts by the Scottish National Party to drive a wedge between the workers of Scotland and those of England over the Lin wood Factory? The workers in my constituency totally reject that party's narrow, chauvinistic attitude. Nevertheless,


they expect the Government to take action to prevent this disaster from happening to Scotland and also to prevent its happening to the Midlands. Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the new developing industries in Scotland is at stake and that the money which is forthcoming should be used to acquire it in the interests of the nation?

Mr. Ross: I appreciate my hon. Friend's concern, which he knows I share. British Leyland, which had a considerable stake in Scotland, was safeguarded by the Government. We took the same attitude towards Ferranti and safeguarded its position in Scotland. Members of the Scottish National Party are so narrow, mean and miserable in their outlook that I deplore the fact that they proclaim themselves to be Scots.

Mr. Teddy Taylor: Does the Secretary of State agree that as unemployment is bad and likely to get worse, he should be doing everything possible to attract new jobs to Scotland? Will he say what steps he has taken in recent months and weeks and what assurances he has obtained about the programme for the transfer of 7,000 Civil Service jobs to Glasgow? Is he aware of the joint agreed statements between Government Ministers and Sir William Gray, the former Lord Provost, that a site for the Foreign and Commonwealth Office will be decided in June and that recruitment will begin this year for the Ministry of Defence? Why is the programme slipping and what is the right hon. Gentleman doing about it?

Mr. Ross: I should be grateful if detailed questions of that sort were tabled as Questions and were not wrapped up in a general question. I do not know whether the hon. Gentleman is aware that one of the main events this week is the granting of the Royal Assent to the Scottish Development Agency Bill. That will help us considerably. We could have been helped more if the Opposition had not blocked the Bill when it went to the Scottish Grand Committee. The hon. Gentleman is rather belated in his sudden concern.
During the past month there has been a considerable increase in inquiries for sites for quality jobs in Scotland, and that trend is continuing.

Mr. Fairbairn: As the Secretary of State has raised once again the subject

of the Scottish Development Agency, will he tell us from what part of Scottish industry the £3 million to be invested in it will come?

Mr. Ross: It will come from the taxpayers of this country.

Licensing Laws

Mr. James White: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland when he pro poses to begin discussions on the proposed reform of the licensing laws in Scotland, as indicated in his statement to the House on 28th October.

Mr. William Ross: My Department wrote on 30th October to the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities and the Association of Chief Police Officers (Scotland) inviting their comments on the practical implications of my proposals.

Mr. White: Will my right hon. Friend tell the House whether during consultations we can expect any legislation on this rather serious subject?

Mr. Ross: We can expect legislation. I advise my hon. Friend to wait. He will not have to wait very long until the Gracious Speech.

General Anaesthetics (Dentists)

Mr. Dempsey: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland if he will call for a report regarding the condition of equipment used for the administration of general anaesthetics in general dental practices in view of the findings of a recent inquiry arising out of a death.

Mr. McElhone: No, Sir. I am aware of the recent tragic case to which my hon. Friend refers, but there is no reason to believe that this is a general problem. A dentist in general practice is required by his terms of service to furnish his surgery with suitable equipment and I am satisfied that dentists generally fulfil this requirement.

Mr. Dempsey: Is my hon. Friend aware that the inquiry report established that this equipment was in a non-satisfactory condition? I have a letter from the dental officer of the area health board saying that that board has no responsibility to ensure that such equipment is kept in a proper condition. Is my hon. Friend aware that, following the report of this


tragedy, the pathologist stated that it was dangerous to give a general anaesthetic to someone in an upright position? As the professionals seem to have different opinions on this matter, will he pursue it and clarify the situation for the benefit of all concerned?

Mr. McElhone: My hon. Friend has made three points. The inquiry returned a formal verdict in this case. There are conflicting views within the profession about administering anaesthetics in different positions. Some of the problems associated with general anaesthesia and dental practice are at present being examined by a joint committee of the National Dental Consultative Committee and the Anaesthetic Sub-Committee of the National Medical Consultative Committee.
It is for the area health board concerned to decide whether the circumstances in any particular case warrant reference to a service committee. I understand that in this case the matter has yet to be considered formally by the board. Therefore, I am not in a position to say what action, if any, it may decide to take. I shall write to my hon. Friend when I receive the information.

Planning Applications

Mr. Russell Johnston: asked the Secretary of State for Scotland whether he is satisfied with the procedures for dealing with planning applications in Scotland.

Mr. Millan: Existing procedures work satisfactorily for most planning applications. But I have asked my officials to explore afresh, with the new local authorities, the scope for further improvement.

Mr. Johnston: I welcome the Minister's answer. Is he satisfied with the speed with which planning appeals are dealt with by the Scottish Office? Could the process be accelerated if, for example, more staff were employed?

Mr. Millan: I doubt whether that would be the answer. I am not aware of any untoward delays in the Scottish Office in dealing with reports of planning inquiries. If delays take place at all, they occur at the time of the inquiry. Earlier this year we issued a circular about new, improved procedures of

inquiry, which are now being put into effect. We are already reaping some benefit from that. A number of inquiries have continued for far too long and there have been delays in the reports, delays that are completely unjustified. However, I hope that the House will appreciate that once an inquiry is under way and a reporter has been appointed, it is not open to the Secretary of State—indeed, it would be improper for him—to try to influence the reporter in any way. In case I am misunderstood, I make it clear that I am not referring to any particular current inquiry.

Mr. Gray: Will the Minister agree that an easy way round this would be to state a date by which the reporter of a public inquiry should report? Is he aware that apprehension over the inquiry at Nigg Bay concerning a refinery is causing considerable anxiety to the whole area?

Mr. Millan: That was a 38-day inquiry. If we were to lay down in advance a time limit for an inquiry we should, in effect, be preventing people from giving evidence, including objectors. I would remind hon. Members of the Drumbuie inquiry and the kind of difficulties we should have experienced if we had attempted anything of that sort. That will give the hon. Gentleman some idea of the kind of problems we face.
We are trying to complete these inquiries as quickly as possible, but we cannot do so simply at the expense of objectors and, for that matter, applicants. At the end of the day, we cannot dictate to reporters how they should go about their business. We have given guidance, which is already being followed and which is producing results. The time inquiries are taking is being reduced.

Mr. Robert Hughes: Is my right hon. Friend aware that one of the difficulties of planning inquiries, large or small, is lack of finance? Will he look into the possibility of making available a fund for assistance to individuals to bring forward their appeals, possibly on the basis that it could be drawn upon after it had been certified that the appeal was not frivolous?

Mr. Millan: There are great difficulties in that, as well. This has been considered very carefully by successive Governments. Whatever else it would do,


providing finance for appellants would not reduce the length of time taken in reaching planning decisions. That is not the only consideration, and there are other difficulties.

Mr. Henderson: Is not the right hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern about the lack of rights of people to object to planning applications? Is not he aware that many people find out only when it is too late that a planning application has been submitted in relation to a neighbouring property and may reduce the amenity and value of their own property, and that they have no position at law under the present planning legislation to complain or lodge objections? Is not this something that requires urgent attention and urgent legislation?

Mr. Millan: If the hon. Gentleman has a particular point to raise on this matter—I think that I know the point to which he is referring—I should be grateful if he would write to me about it. However, this is largely a matter of legislation, and, of course, it would not reduce delays, whatever the rights of the matter. What we have been talking about with the authorities—and we shall be having a comprehensive review with them—is the management of planning business, so that the delays inherent in the system are not added to by delays that arise from inefficiency in handling applications. There has been some difficulty about getting this review started, because local authorities have had to have some time to organise themselves. But we are now looking at the matter with the Convention of Scottish Local Authorities.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH ASSEMBLY

Mr. Robertson: asked the Lord Advocate when he next proposes to meet the Law Society to discuss the possible transfer of Scottish legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Gourlay: asked the Lord Advocate what representations he has received regarding the transfer of legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.

Mr. Lambie: asked the Lord Advocate what studies are being undertaken

by his Department to facilitate the possible transfer of Scottish law functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly.

The Lord Advocate (Mr. Ronald King Murray): I have no immediate plans to meet the Law Society of Scotland to discuss a possible transfer of Scottish legal functions to the proposed Scottish Assembly, and I have received no representations on this subject. My contacts with the Law Society are, of course, extremely close, and when the White Paper on Devolution is published the Government will listen very carefully to any representations which it—or others—wishes to make with regard to the proposals contained in it. Meanwhile, my officials have, of course, been involved along with those of other Departments in the preparation of the Government's devolution proposals, including a consideration of the issues arising in relation to Scottish law functions.

Mr. Robertson: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend consider that perhaps it would be as well if he were to take an early opportunity to dispel the rumours that he is less than lukewarm towards devolution?

The Lord Advocate: I think that my hon. Friend knows better than his question suggests that I have been a supporter of the principle of reasonable devolution for Scotland for 25 years, and I remain of that view.

Mr. Lambie: Will my right hon. and learned Friend give an assurance to the House that there will be no unholy alliance among the advocates and QCs in this House, such as himself and the hon. and learned Member for Kinross and West Perthshire (Mr. Fairbairn), so that when the legal powers are transferred to the Scottish Assembly their powers of patronage will not be continued under the new Assembly?

The Lord Advocate: Every issue properly before the public on a matter of this kind must be openly and fully discussed. I should have thought it almost a contradiction in terms to suggest that there could be an unholy alliance between QCs.

Mr. David Steel: Will the right hon. and learned Gentleman give an assurance that the transfer of legal functions to


Scotland will not be used by the Government as an excuse for postponing much-needed law reform in Scotland on such subjects as divorce and licensing laws?

The Lord Advocate: I certainly give that assurance, and I am grateful for the opportunity to reaffirm what I have said previously from this Dispatch Box: that although it would be wrong for the Government and the House to impose priorities on the new Assembly, I regard nothing as standing in the way of the Government's going ahead with law reform as fast as is reasonably possible.

Mr. Gordon Wilson: In view of the general unpopularity of the House of Lords on the Government Benches at present, will not the right hon. and learned Gentleman consider giving his support as Lord Advocate for proposals for the removal of the appellate jurisdiction of the House of Lords in dealing with Scottish legal cases in view of the assimilation of the laws of Scotland which it has carried out for many years?

The Lord Advocate: That is a matter that deserves more than an off-the-cuff reply, and I do not think that it arises out of the matter that was put to me. If the hon, Gentleman wishes to raise it, no doubt he will table a Question.

Mr. Fairbairn: Will the Lord Advocate record the appreciation of this House of the fact that the Scots have provided the best lawyers in the House of Lords, that they have done more than anyone else to fashion the law of England as well as the law of Scotland, and that none has a more glorious name in that connection than the late Lord Reid?

The Lord Advocate: I certainly associate myself with the remarks of the hon. and learned Gentleman about the late Lord Reid. For the rest, the hon. and learned Gentleman has put the matter on record himself, and there is no need for me to add to it.

Mr. Rifkind: Does the right hon. and learned Gentleman accept that, notwithstanding devolution, there will continue to be a great degree of United Kingdom legislation that will also affect Scotland? Does he also, therefore, accept that, notwithstanding the Assembly, there will be a continuing need for a Scottish Law

Officer in this House to advise the Government on the implications of Scottish legislation?

The Lord Advocate: The hon. Gentleman is indulging in some very intelligent speculation, but I think that he must hold his patience until publication of the White Paper later this month.

Oral Answers to Questions — DISTRICT COURTS

Mr. Canavan: asked the Lord Advocate what are the responsibilities of his Department with regard to the operation of the district courts.

The Lord Advocate: My Department is concerned solely with prosecution in the district courts.

Mr. Canavan: Does not my right hon. and learned Friend have any responsibility, even in an advisory capacity, for the training of lay magistrates? Can he not ensure that lay magistrates are adequately trained and are also familiar with the social background of the accused people with whom they deal, particularly in view of the recent case at Kilsyth District Court where one of my constituents, a young boy of very modest means, was fined the incredible sum of £40 for the comparatively trivial offence of stealing 2 lb. of potatoes.

The Lord Advocate: I am aware of the case to which my hon. Friend refers. However, he must know that if a convicted person feels that his sentence has been unduly harsh or oppressive he has a remedy and method of appeal to the Appeal Court, which may be able to grant him a remedy.
Of course I have an interest in training, but that is different from a duty in regard to it. The training of justices is a duty placed upon the local justices committee and the arrangements for training have to be approved by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland.

Oral Answers to Questions — LORD ADVOCATE (VISIT)

Mr. Teddy Taylor: asked the Lord Advocate if he will pay an official visit to Glasgow.

The Lord Advocate: I have no immediate plans to pay an official visit to Glasgow.

Mr. Taylor: Has the Lord Advocate studied the reports of the tragic deaths of the Oswald family in my constituency? In view of the widespread suggestions that gas conversion may be linked in some way with these tragic deaths, does not he agree that there would be a case, which he alone can authorise, for a fatal accident inquiry, and, depending upon the results of that, possibly a public inquiry into the general implications of this tragedy?

The Lord Advocate: It is true that the heating system in question was recently converted to the use of natural gas, that is, North Sea gas. As hon. Members will know, it is a regrettable fact that a police constable in the Strathclyde Police Force, Mr. Oswald, and his twin sons died in their home at Netherlee in Glasgow on 8th November 1975. A post mortem examination has shown that the cause of death in each case was carbon monoxide poisoning. Investigations are continuing. It would be premature to speculate on the exact cause of this unfortunate disaster, but I can state that I propose to direct that a fatal accident inquiry be held as soon as possible.

Oral Answers to Questions — SCOTTISH CRIMINAL JURIES

Mr. Fairbairn: asked the Lord Advocate whether he supports the recommendation of the Thomson Committee that Scottish criminal juries should be reduced to the size of English criminal juries.

The Lord Advocate: The recommendation of the Thomson Committee that Scottish criminal juries should be reduced to 12 was associated with proposals that the three verdicts and the simple majority should be retained. This view was reached after hearing evidence from witnesses with great knowledge and experience in this field not all of whom agreed. Consultations with interested bodies and organisations will now be held, and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Scotland and I will reserve our own judgment on this point until these are completed.

Mr. Fairbairn: Although I appreciate the Lord Advocate's answer, may I ask whether he is aware that it might appear to those of us who can count that a simple majority is difficult to achieved if there is an even number on the jury? Can

the Lord Advocate give any sensible reason why we should depart from 15 on a jury, which has been such a successful number compared with 12 in England, which has proved infinitely less desirable?

The Lord Advocate: I do not know whether the hon. and learned Gentleman regards a saving in public expenditure as a factor which should be taken into account, but I certainly do.
As to his comments about arithmetic, I should have thought that he was as capable of doing arithmetic as any other person. It is surely obvious that if a jury is equally divided, there is no simple majority.

Mr. Buchan: Would the Lord Advocate agree that there are aspects of this question which bear strongly on the freedom and liberty of the subject? Apart from any other inner discussion that the Lord Advocate may have with the legal profession, is it not surely necessary to have a very early meeting of the Scottish Grand Committee to discuss some of these wider implications?

The Lord Advocate: I agree. It is right to say that the Thomson Committee was an extremely far-sighted committee and that many of its recommendations are controversial. I hope that there will be constructive controversy.

Oral Answers to Questions — "OLYMPIC ALLIANCE" (COLLISION)

Mr. Peter Rees (by Private Notice): asked the Secretary of State for Trade if he will make a statement about the collision in the Channel between a British frigate and a Panamanian oil tanker

The Under-Secretary of State for Trade (Mr. Clinton Davis): I understand that at 0039 hours this morning the "Olympic Alliance", a 220,000 deadweight tons oil tanker, registered in Liberia but owned by a Panamanian company, was in collision in fog with HMS "Achilles", a Royal Naval frigate. This occurred seven miles due north of Cap Griz Nez and about 13 miles from Dover. No casualties were reported among the crews, and the "Olympic Alliance" is now proceeding to Wilhelmshaven and the "Achilles" to Portsmouth or Plymouth according to the state of the weather and the damage to the ship.
At 0130 hours this morning HM Coastguard at St. Margaret's Bay received a report from the "Olympic Alliance" of oil pollution and it was later estimated that a spillage of about 2,000 tons of oil had occurred. There is a possibility that it could reach our coasts. As soon as visibility allowed, at 0900 hours the tug "Diligent" fitted with spraying equipment left Dover and a naval reconnaissance aircraft was airborne. Three fishing vessels with spraying equipment are also operating. At the request of my Department, naval assistance is being provided this afternoon by RMAS "Kinloss" and HMS "Bildeston", and other vessels, including the specially equipped tug "Calshot" which sailed from Southampton at 5 a.m., will also be available this afternoon. My hon. Friend the Under-Secretary of State for the Royal Navy has flown this morning to the area to see for himself the extent of the problem.
The latest report I have is that the present size of the slick is about two miles by one mile and the spraying vessels are having some success in breaking it up. Its present location is some 11 miles from Dover.
The aim of the clearance operation is to break up the oil slick as much as possible today and then to concentrate on mopping up. I cannot give any timetable in view of the difficulties relating to visibility, the long hours of darkness and the busy shipping lanes in which the spraying vessels must operate, but I believe the operation is being carried out with the utmost efficiency.
HM Coastguard at St. Margaret's Bay is in close touch with the French Maritime Headquarters at Cap Gris Nez and assistance will be sought from other Channel States if necessary.
A naval inquiry will be held into the incident, and I understand that the French authorities will also investigate the incident. We are also in touch with the Liberian authorities.

Mr. Rees: I am sure the House is grateful to the Minister for the information which he has just given. I should like to ask him three questions.
First, is he satisfied with the co-ordination between his own Department, the Kent County Council which also has a

great measure of responsibility, and the Dover District Council which is responsible for the foreshore? Secondly, is he satisfied that there is sufficient spray or detergent to break up the slick, and sufficient spray of a kind which will not completely devastate all marine life in the area? Finally, will the inquiry which is to be set up determine which party is to blame? Whoever should foot the bill, I think it should not be the ratepayers of East Kent.

Mr. Davis: Before I answer the hon. and learned Gentleman's questions, I think I should say that I have some additional information over and above that which I have provided, which the House would want to hear. I have just received information that six vessels are now spraying, including the "Calshot" and the "Kinloss". Two other naval vessels are on the way, apart from those which I have mentioned, and three vessels from France will be provided tomorrow. As I have said, I think this indicates that the matter is receiving the utmost attention.
The hon. and learned Gentleman asked about co-ordination. I think that the measure of co-ordination that has been established between all those concerned is extremely good. I have no criticism to make of it.
With regard to the sufficiency of the spray, I have already indicated the number of vessels that are engaged in the operation, and there will be more. I have no reason to believe that there is an insufficiency of spray, on the evidence that I have at present.
On the question of possible injury to marine life, I am advised that the dispersant being used is of very low toxicity compared with that which was used in the "Torrey Canyon" incident. I do not believe there is a great deal of cause for concern on that score.
The hon. and learned Gentleman also asked about compensation. I think that the arrangements which are made through the tanker owners' voluntary agreement concerning liability for oil pollution—known as TOVALOP—will provide the compensation to which the hon. and learned Gentleman refers.

Mr. Higgins: Can the Minister confirm that the radar surveillance scheme, which was introduced three years ago,


was fully operational? If so, will there be a record of which vessel was contravening the separation scheme or crossing the separation zone? Was the radar on both vessels operating?
May I ask whether it is the case that neither the amendments to the 1954 pollution convention nor the 1972 collision regulations have yet received sufficient signatories for them to become ratified? If that is so, can he say which countries have not yet signed?
Thirdly, can the hon. Gentleman say whether the tanker is still leaking and whether there will be a Department of Trade inquiry, as well as simply an inquiry by the naval authorities which I understand him to say is to take place?

Mr. Davis: On the question of radar surveillance, on the information that I have—the House will recognise that I cannot at the moment be in possession of all the information—I have no reason to believe that the surveillance was not operating efficiently. I understand that there is a record which will be made available to the investigations which are to be carried out.
With regard to the IMCO convention, the hon. and learned Gentleman will know that there are more than 90 members of IMCO. An insufficient number have, in fact, signed and ratified and, of course, this is the reason why the regulations are not yet in operation. In fact, I made a speech about this at the recent IMCO conference, urging that it was necessary to embark upon the ratification of the convention as soon as possible.
I have no information at present about whether the vessel is still leaking.
On the question of the inquiry, the Department of Trade has no locus stand in the matter of an inquiry into this incident because it was not a British ship which was involved. The other vessel concerned was a Royal Navy vessel. It is, therefore, for the Ministry of Defence to carry out its inquiry. We shall co-operate with the Ministry, and the Ministry with us, in every possible way.

Mr. Ogden: Can my hon. Friend say whether the point of departure or the destination of the Liberian tanker was a British port and, if so, will he ask the Ministry of Defence to make a careful

inquiry into the standards of certification of the officers and the manning efficiency of the crew?

Mr. Davis: I understand that there was no intention on the part of this vessel to enter a British port. I believe the "Olympic Alliance" was on its way to Wilhelmshaven, so the question my hon. Friend asks does not arise.

Mr. Costain: When I spoke to the Director of Technical Services of Shep-way Council this morning he was very appreciative of the prompt action taken by the county council and other authorities to deal with the situation, but is the hon. Gentleman aware that there is some concern because of the weather forecast which predicts south-easterly gale force winds? This means that the oil may be washed up on the beaches of Folkestone and Hythe. Can he say whether the local authorities will be paid for any emergency operation and that it will not be done at the ratepayers' expense?

Mr. Davis: I have already dealt with the last part of the hon. Member's question. I am grateful for the prompt action taken by all concerned, including the local authority. My information on weather conditions is not as up-to-date as the hon. Member's information. There has been a fairly light breeze, but visibility has been diminishing and this is adding to the difficulties of the operation.

Mr. Aitken: In an oral Question on 23rd June this year, I urged the hon. Gentleman to tighten up the safety and seamanship regulations for tankers in the English Channel. In the light of this distressing episode, will he look again at his answers on that occasion? Is he aware that there is great anxiety among my constituents that the beaches of Broadstairs and Ramsgate may be polluted by the oil slick? Will he ensure that contingency plans are laid for a cleansing operation, particularly in relation to financial assistance to Thanet District Council and the Kent County Council? If the frigate turns out to have been at fault, will the Admiralty pay the cost of cleansing operations?

Mr. Davis: This vessel was registered in Liberia and owned by a Panamanian company, so it is a little unlikely that my Department will be able to enforce safety


and seamanship regulations. I understand the hon. Member's anxiety, but he should have gauged from my answers that we are doing our very best to prevent pollution. I hope that the oil will not reach the beaches. I have already answered the hon. Member's third point. The question of who was to blame for the collision is a matter to be determined by the inquiry. The hon. Member's last question should be directed to my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Defence.

Mr. Faulds: Is my hon. Friend satisfied that the operation to contain the oil slick or break it up could not have started before 9 a.m.? He mentioned the bad visibility, but were there other factors in what seems to have been a somewhat tardy start to the operation?

Mr. Davis: I have already indicated that visibility was the predominant factor and I have no reason to believe that there were any other factors operating. Those who have engaged in this operation will in due course make reports to us and the matter will be fully investigated. I hope the House will not seek to allocate blame at this stage.

Oral Answers to Questions — TRADE UNION AND LABOUR RELATIONS (AMENDMENT) BILL

The Secretary of State for Employment (Mr. Michael Foot): With permission, Mr. Speaker, I should like to make a statement on the Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill. I apologise to the right hon. Member for Lowestoft (Mr. Prior) if he has received a copy of this rather lengthy statement at a rather late moment.
In particular, I should like to say a few words to the House in explanation of why it has not been possible to reach agreement between the two Houses.
First, the Government have not been able to agree to the proposals put forward in another place because we considered that it was quite inappropriate to provide that breaches of the charter should be taken to the courts in the way suggested. That is our objection in principle. The fact that the particular proposal which the other House has put to us involves the use of a concept which was described by my noble Friend the

Lord Chancellor as not only unusual but fraught with difficulty and obscurity has been a further complication. Lord Goodman yesterday described his own proposal as unquestionably uncertain, unquestionably obscure and unquestionably open to argument. It is that proposal which he asked us to put on the statute book.
Secondly, I must make absolutely clear that we were unable to agree to the proposals put forward by another place because our aim has been to achieve, as quickly as possible, arrangements within the industry which would provide effective safeguards against any risks to the freedom of the Press which might be thought to be involved in the passing of the Bill. We therefore could not ignore the possible impact on the attitude of the parties within the industry of an insistence in advance that the charter should include a number of rights favoured especially by one side to the discussion. The majority in another place have, most unwisely, disregarded that risk altogether.
I do not wish to make a detailed statement about all the issues which have arisen, but a large number of controversial and misleading comments have been made.
First, it has been suggested that all the attempts at a compromise have come from Lord Goodman and his associates and that the Government have been obdurate. No one who has followed what actually occurred could believe that to be the case. I welcomed the idea of a charter when the possibility was first raised. I suggested when the House debated the issue on 12th February on the Report stage of the Bill that, if the parties wished to have it incorporated in some code of practice, the Government would certainly be prepared to consider it. We welcomed Lord Houghton's amendment immediately it was made.
The matters which the charter should cover have been made more specific. The charter will now be relevant to all proceedings before courts or tribunals. The ground which the Secretary of State can cover if he has to make a charter without the agreement of the parties has been limited—a concession which Lord Goodman himself has described as substantial. The Government have genuinely sought a
sensible settlement and I repudiate all Lord Goodman's statements to the contrary. He accused me in the House of Lords of bad faith, and I think that on reflection he will wish to withdraw any such accusation.
It is particularly alleged that the Government withdrew a compromise offer at virtually the last minute yesterday and that we were very close to an agreement. This statement, repeated in The Times today, completely misrepresents the position. The Lord Privy Seal rightly and immediately made clear in another place that no firm proposal was made. Certainly exploratory discussions took place following a brief meeting between Ministers and Lord Goodman. A draft was drawn up in an attempt to see whether there was room for agreement on a provision about public policy which would meet both the Government and Lord Goodman. There was a good deal of discussion about alternatives, but in the end Lord Goodman rejected the Government's preferred version.
However, it is quite wrong to see this as the only outstanding issue. At the meeting, Lord Goodman made it clear that there were a number of other issues on which he wished to insist and that the Government should make major changes. In particular he insisted, as he did in another place yesterday, that the provision relating to the coverage of the charter must contain a right of journalists not to be unreasonably expelled or excluded from a union. The Government do not think it necessary to set this out as something which must be included in the charter. Nothing in the Bill prevents the exercise of existing common law rights in this field.
The Government believe that when Section 5 of the Trade Union and Labour Relations Act is repealed the TUC's proposed independent review committee will provide adequate machinery to deal with any cases which cannot be satisfactorily resolved within the machinery of individual unions. Moreover, the NUJ's own machinery means that no member can be expelled without the agreement of the national executive, and within the union there is also an appeals machinery. Nevertheless, this is the point on which Lord Goodman is now placing so much em-

phasis and on which he was demanding a change even if some compromise had been possible on other issues, although it is a very different proposal from those put to me originally by the editors, which were about the position of editors in the closed shop.
On the constitutional question, it is necessary to recall that this is the first time for many years—indeed, it is one of the rare occasions in several decades—when the House of Lords has gone to such lengths to frustrate the will of the House of Commons. Yet who will claim that this is the most controversial of all measures introduced in the period? The Bill is itself a repeal of the Industrial Relations Act of 1971, which was passed through this House under the guillotine and which now by general consent is necessarily to be repealed. Yet the House of Lords never invited the Commons to reconsider a single controversial provision of the 1971 Act.
The Trade Union and Labour Relations (Amendment) Bill, by contrast, was passed through this House in all stages without any resort to the guillotine and with increasingly large majorities in a House of Commons where the Government command no such considerable majority of their own. And yet the House of Lords has intervened and used its residual power to prevent us placing on the statute book a measure for which we have a good majority in this House and on which we had a mandate at two elections.

Mr. Churchill: Twenty-eight per cent.

Mr. Foot: At a time when respect for Parliament and more especially this elected Chamber is of such supreme importance in overcoming our national problems, I believe that everyone in this House should join in condemning this challenge to democratic authority. Consequently, the Government have every intention of reintroducing this Bill in the next Session.

Mr. Prior: I am grateful to the Secretary of State for saying that he gave me short notice of the statement. Perhaps that is the only thing in it for which I should be grateful. We find it a deeply disappointing statement but it lives up fully to the standard we now expect from the right hon. Gentleman. It is a classic example of misrepresentation and hypocrisy. I dare say that Lord Goodman will


have something to say about that too. [HON. MEMBERS: So what?"]
How dare the Labour Party seek to lecture us on respect for Parliament and the law? Is not the right hon. Gentleman once more putting Socialism before freedom? Is it not absurd for him to pose as the great conciliator when every concession has had to be wrung out of him by force of argument and under pressure from dissenting colleagues? [HON. MEMBERS: "Sit down."] Where are all those Cabinet cowards of the cocktail set now? Where have they all disappeared to this afternoon? [An HON. MEMBER: "All the Conservative ones have gone home."] So would Labour Members if it were not for a three-line Whip, the Whip that we hope will throw out the right hon. Gentleman's statement. Is not this attempt to label—[Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. I hope that the House will quieten down. The Minister has made a statement and he is entitled to be questioned on that statement. [Interruption.] Order. I do not need any assistance in making my rulings. The Minister is entitled to be questioned, but there is no entitlement for speeches to be made. Perhaps the time will come next Session when speeches will be appropriate, but for the moment we are having only a statement. The Minister must be questioned upon it, and I do not intend to allow such questions to go on for very long.

Mr. Prior: Does not an attempt to label this as a challenge to democratic authority come ill from a Labour Government, above all on the issue involving the freedom of the Press? Even at this stage, will not the right hon. Gentleman agree to the Royal Commission looking at this issue so that he may come back to the House with a proper Bill which guarantees the freedom of the Press?

Mr. Foot: The question about the Royal Commission has been answered on a number of occasions. Of course, the Government will take account of the recommendations of the Royal Commission. Like you, Mr. Speaker, I had some difficulty in detecting any questions which might have been buried in the right hon. Gentleman's rhetoric. He said that he wondered why we should think that the rights of this House have something to do with democracy. I would have

thought that this was one of the essential parts of democracy. I was trying to underline that we cannot tolerate the second Chamber being prepared to intervene against Labour Governments on these matters but never, even on far more controversial matters, against Conservative Governments.

Mr. George Cunningham: Leaving aside the wider considerations of the future of the upper Chamber, is it not insufferable that amendments were made in the other place to a House of Commons Bill when they would not even have been in order in this House? If the other place does not put that right, we in this House must do something about it. Will my right hon. Friend reaffirm that the Government are not opposed to legislation on the freedom of the Press and that some such legislation will come along in the course of this Parliament?

Mr. Foot: I am glad to reaffirm my hon. Friend's proposition. We shall send a Bill once more to the House of Lords, I hope very soon in the new Session, but of course we shall seek by whatever may be the best method to try to ensure that all the agreements we have made in this House concerning the freedom of the Press are included in that proposition.

Mr. Cyril Smith: Is the right hon. Gentleman aware that many of us on the Opposition side find the hereditary principle of accession to the other place revolting? Will he none the less accept that until the Government do something about altering that method the second Chamber has a right to influence legislation? If he accepts that premise, may I appeal to him to hold meetings between now and the reintroduction of the Bill with responsible people in another place at least to try to find some compromise within the Bill?

Mr. Foot: The Government have tried very hard to secure a settlement of this issue, and that is why I repudiate absolutely the case made in some quarters and repeated by Lord Goodman yesterday that I had not sought to do so. I doubt whether many hon. Members in this House would repeat Lord Goodman's accusations. Most of my hon. Friends who have differences of view on the issue will remember the lengthy discussions we had on the question.
The proper place to settle these matters is the House of Commons. The House of Lords should take account of what is said in this place, particularly when it is emphasised and re-emphasised by votes here. My complaint is that at the end of all these votes and debates the other place has set out to frustrate the decision of the House of Commons. Whether that is done by hereditary peers or anyone else, it is objectionable to this House.

Mr. Bidwell: Does my right hon. Friend agree that, having regard to the way in which relationships between the Commons and the other place have progressed over the years, it is reprehensible that the leadership of a mere life peer in the House of Lords has led to the present situation? Does it not raise the question of the necessity for an inquiry by Back-Bench Members on both sides of the House to go into the ways and means by which such people get into the legislative process?

Mr. Foot: That raises much wider questions, and I should not be tempted to follow my hon. Friend into pursuing them.

Mr. Speaker: Mrs. Shirley Williams—statement.

Mr. Atkinson: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. A number of points have arisen from the statement by my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Employment, but most important is what happens to workers' rights suspended as a result of the elimination of the 1971 Act. As I understand it, if the normal procedures are followed, it will be some considerable time—

Mr. Speaker: Order. This has nothing to do with me. The hon. Gentleman is allowed to raise only matters of order over which I have some control under the Standing Orders of the House. If the hon. Gentleman is putting a question to the Minister, it is no longer in order and it is not a point of order.

Mr. Atkinson: With great respect, Mr. Speaker, I think that it has a great deal to do with you. [An hon. Member: "Sit down."] I shall wait for Mr. Speaker to tell me. I shall not sit down because a mediocrity on the Opposition Benches tells me.
We on this side of the House are concerned about the suspension of trade unions' right to organise. What has happened in the House of Lords has stripped organised workers of basic rights. The normal procedures have been outraged and an important principle is at stake. [Interruption.]

Mr. Speaker: Order. This is intolerable. I must be allowed to listen to the hon. Gentleman.

Mr. Atkinson: How the whole matter is handled, Mr. Speaker, depends on you, as I tried to say in the points of order I raised this morning towards the end of yesterday's sitting, when again, as a result of an absolute abuse of parliamentary procedures by the House of Lords, we had to agree or reject amendments to a Bill which were clearly out of order because they would increase the cost of the legislation before the House of Commons. I understand that that is—

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman must not rehash this morning's point of order. He was completely wrong. The amendment to which he referred was a Government amendment made in the House of Lords. It did not involve an additional charge. If the hon. Gentleman is good enough to read the Official Report, he will see how clearly that was stated. He was on a very bad point then. May I now hear the hon. Gentleman's present policy?

Mr. Atkinson: We are discussing an extremely important point, Mr. Speaker. It cannot be dismissed in the hope that trade unions will remain in a state of suspended animation until the House of Commons can return to the business in 12 months' time. Workers are stripped of their organisational rights as long as the passage of the Bill is prevented by the House of Lords, and that is not good enough.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I understand the sincerity with which the hon. Gentleman makes this point. I fully realise the importance which he attaches to it. But it is not within my power to allow a debate on it today. This is a matter of argument on the substance. It has nothing to do with the rules of order. It may be a very important point, but it is not one for me.

Mr. Atkinson: Can you advise the House, Mr. Speaker, as to the procedures that are now involved? How can we as Back Benchers protect the people whom we represent by using legitimate procedures of the House of Commons to get the Bill back on to our Order Paper? My right hon. Friend says that he is frustrated to the extent that he can no longer bring back the Bill. We have got rid of the other legislation, and now I understand that we must wait until about next November before we can yet again talk about trade union rights. Can you advise Back Benchers, Mr. Speaker, on the best way in which they can protect the rights of those whom we are sent here to represent? If you are now saying that there is no way in which we can legitimately raise these issues in the House, we shall have to take extraordinary measures to reinstate—[HON. MEMBERS: "Oh."]

Mr. Speaker: Order. The hon. Gentleman has raised a perfectly—[Interruption.] Order. May we stop this shouting across the Chamber.

Mr. Heffer: An hon. Gentleman opposite started it.

Mr. Speaker: I do not care who started it. The hon. Gentleman is continuing it.
The hon. Member for Tottenham (Mr. Atkinson) is on a perfectly fair point. I think that it is unwise for the Chair to give too much advice too often. But if I were in the hon. Gentleman's place, I should make a great big row about his point as soon as the House meets again, which will be in a very short time. That is the time to do it. We shall be here again—all being well, and not knowing quite what will happen during the next few days—this day week. That is the time for the hon. Gentleman to start to raise his point. He must do it loud and strong, and no doubt he will.

Mr. Atkinson: I am grateful to you, Mr. Speaker. You can rest assured that your advice will be taken.

Mr. Kinnock: On a point of order, Mr. Speaker. I realise that there are great constraints upon your time and that you cannot call every hon. Member who rises in the hope of asking a Minister a question on a statement. Nevertheless, the reason for our being in this situation

is the abuse of this House by a bunch of unelected busybodies in the other place.

Mr. Speaker: Order. I shall not allow that kind of reference to the other place. It has a long tradition. It exists with its present powers by virtue of an Act of Parliament passed by a Labour Government in my early days as a Member. It has those powers. Whether that is right or wrong is not a matter on which I should express an opinion, but I will not have that kind of expression used.

Mr. Cryer: In view of the grave constitutional crisis which now faces Parliament, Mr. Speaker, could you endeavour during the period of the Prorogation to consult my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House about examining the serious constitutional nature of the position whereby the Lords has defied the Commons yet again, with a view to introducing into this Chamber as soon as possible after 19th November a short, sharp Bill by which we can abolish the House of Lords?

Mr. Speaker: If I had the power to introduce into this Chamber short, sharp Bills, many people might be very surprised. Mrs. Shirley Williams—statement.

Mr. Kinnock: Further to my point of order, Mr. Speaker. I fully acknowledge your position as not only the guardian of the rights of Back Benchers but the custodian of certain traditions in the Palace of Westminster and the relationship between the two Houses. As someone acutely aware of the moods of people outside the House, however, as well as the rights of Members, I am concerned about the suspension of the rights of many people. The very least that we should be allowed is to refer to the way in which those rights have been suspended.

Mr. Speaker: If the hon. Gentleman tries to catch my eye during the debate on the Address, he may or may not succeed.

Mr. Heffer: On a totally new point of order, Mr. Speaker. May I, through you, ask my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House when, after we return next Wednesday, we can get a clear statement from the Government saying when this constitutional position will be cleared up? I understand the deep feelings of


my hon. Friends, which I totally share, but we cannot solve the problem here and now. Therefore, while my right hon. Friend the Leader of the House is present, I believe that we could at least have an indication of how soon the matter will be cleared up and the Bill can be put on to the statute book.

Mr. Speaker: No doubt the Leader of the House will have heard that point. I do not think that this is an appropriate occasion for him to answer it.

Oral Answers to Questions — HOFFMAN-LA ROCHE (PHARMACEUTICAL PRODUCTS)

The Secretary of State for Prices and Consumer Protection (Mrs. Shirley Williams): I will, with permission, Mr. Speaker, make a statement about a settlement which has been reached between the Government and the Hoffman-La Roche Group concerning its ethical pharmaceutical products, including librium and valium, the prices of which have since April 1973 been controlled by Order.
The House will recall that following a report by the Monopolies and Mergers Commission, which was a landmark in the history of monopoly policy, the then Minister for Trade and Consumer Affairs, the right hon. and learned Member for East Surrey (Sir G. Howe), made a statement on 12th April 1973 accepting the Commission's recommendations and announcing the making of an Order reducing the price of librium to 40 per cent; of the 1970 price and the price of valium to 25 per cent. of the 1970 price.
Under the procedures of another place the Roche Company applied to the Special Orders Committee for the appointment of a Select Committee to inquire into the Order. This application was rejected and the Order was approved by Parliament. Subsequently the Company started proceedings in the High Court against the Government and the Commission, alleging unfairness and breach of natural justice and applying to have the Order declared void.
In April 1974 out-of-court negotiations began about the price of the drugs in question to see whether a settlement could be reached. It was desirable to bring Roche back into the Voluntary Price Regulation Scheme of the DHSS

as early as possible. During the course of the negotiations we obtained from the Company a great deal more information than it had given to the Monopolies Commission. I am glad to inform the House that agreement has now been reached as a result of which:
First, the Company will repay to the Government the sum of approximately £3¾ million, in addition to the payments made earlier in respect of the years 1967–69; the figure of £3¾ million is an overall settlement which takes account of excessive profits over the period 1st January 1970 to 23rd April 1973, the date of the coming into force of the Order. In respect of that period the sum is £12 million, but we for our part have accepted that since the Monopolies Commission reported the Order prices have become unduly low and that under normal VPRS guidelines an offset of £8·25 million is due to the Company. The figures on both sides include interest payments;
Second, the Company will come back into the VPRS for all its ethical pharmaceutical products;
Third, the Company has accepted that the new prices of librium and valium will be put at approximately half the 1970 level, which was the base line from which the Monopolies Commission inquiry started, and that it will settle with the DHSS price changes for its other medicines within the provisions of the VPRS; the new prices of librium and valium will be less than half those ruling anywhere in the rest of the world;
Fourth, the Company has informed us that it intends to continue its research and investment in the United Kingdom and that it plans to spend several million pounds on improved research, production and administration facilities both at Welwyn Garden City and at Dairy, Ayrshire, and thus continue its valuable contribution to medicine. It is also considering a further major expansion at Dairy of its vitamin and chemical production facilities for Europe and other world markets.
Fifth, the Company has undertaken to withdraw its legal action against the Crown and the Monopolies Commission together with any allegations of impropriety.
This agreement is clearly incompatible with the continuance in force of the 1973


Order and consequently is subject to its effective revocation.
I believe this to be a satisfactory resolution of our differences with the Hoffman-La Roche Group of companies, and under the provisions of the Fair Trading Act I am therefore publishing the statutory notice of my intention to make an Order to revoke the 1973 Order.
In conclusion, I wish to pay a particular tribute to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission for the important work which it has done in this case. I believe the solution will be in the interest of the public both here and abroad.

Mrs. Sally Oppenheim: Will the right hon. Lady accept that my right hon. and hon. Friends will want to be associated with the tribute which she has paid to the Monopolies and Mergers Commission? Will she also accept that we want to associate with that tribute my right hon. and learned Friend the Member for Surrey, East (Sir G. Howe), who played an important role in bringing about the report and the subsequent agreement? Will the right hon. Lady further accept that we welcome the fact that the negotiations have finally been concluded and that the result of them would appear to be highly satisfactory both in respect of the sums that are to be repaid and with regard to the Company's compliance with VPRS in future?
Will the right hon. Lady confirm that in accepting the agreement with the Company she will not in any way preclude our position in respect of the Directorate of Competition in the EEC Commission, which is presently investigating the Company in relation to any proposals that it may make in future which we would like to implement in respect of the Company, particularly as wider application of the Commission's competitive policy will help to safeguard consumers and reinforce and extend the benefits of our monopoly legislation?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I am glad to say that nothing in the settlement affects in any way the investigation being undertaken by the European Commission into alleged breaches of the competition rules of the Treaty of Rome. We were represented at the recent meeting of the Community's Competition Policy Committee which was investigating the so-called

royalty rebate system which Roche had applied to a number of its customers in the European Community countries.

Dr. M. S. Miller: I congratulate my right hon. Friend on the part that she has played in exposing what is quite obviously another unacceptable face of capitalism. Is she not astonished at the level of profit that was made by these companies in the National Health Service, companies which depend to a great extent on the NHS? Would it not save the Government and the British people a great deal of time, trouble and money if we nationalised the drug industry or at least set up a nationalised drug industry of our own?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: There is no doubt that the profits made by the Roche Company prior to the 1973 Order were exceptionally high. My hon. Friend will know that the other part of the question is not a matter for me.

Mr. Penhaligon: Is it not the case that valium is now out of patent production? Perhaps it can be argued that a new price agreement is more to the advantage of the Company than of the British Exchequer? Is it not a fact that the drug is being replaced by another one which I understand is called diazepan, which is patented and is now being strongly promoted within the industry? Is there not a possibility that the whole business which has just come to an end could be started all over again? Will the right hon. Lady let the House know what is being done to stop such matters happening again?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I should explain that although the patent has run out for librium, it has not run out for valium. The price now being set for Roche will be below that of its competitors which supply these drugs in this country. I think that the settlement is a reasonable one, quite apart from the lump sum which has been repaid to the Department of Health and Social Security. With regard to whether the problem might arise again, I can only say that this sort of settlement should be regarded by any company that attempts to make very high profits as a suitable indication of what might happen if that path were followed.

Mr. Mike Thomas: How confident is my right hon. Friend that there are not


other numerous examples of this particular form of exploiting the consumers of the National Health Service and the public purse? What steps is she taking to investigate them? Will she confirm that the figure in the agreement that she has reached will mean that we shall be paying half the going rate in the rest of the world for the drugs concerned? That seems to be an unbelievable discrepancy.

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that my right hon. Friend is satisfied that this is an exceptional case. Indeed, the VPRS exists to prevent extreme profits being made. I think that the House will like to know the new price of librium. As a result of the settlement it will be half that of the price in France, a third of the price in Germany and about a fifth of the price in Australia. The new price of valium will be less than half the price in France and Italy, about a quarter of the price in Germany and a fifth of the price in Australia.

Mr. Churchill: In view of the prima facie evidence that the right hon. Lady has produced this afternoon of gross incompetence within one or more Government Departments in tolerating such a situation and in signing such contracts with foreign drug firms, has she any intention of instituting an inquiry into the Departments concerned?

Mrs. Shirley Williams: I think that the hon. Gentleman will appreciate that there are problems about this administration making a retrospective inquiry into the Departments of another administration. It was in 1970–73 that these large profits arose on which repayment is now being made. I would wish to pay my tribute to the right hon. and learned Member for Surrey, East for having drawn attention to this matter. I am bound to say that it arose at the time primarily under his own administration.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I shall now deal with the matter of Privilege which was raised yesterday.
I have considered the matter of the complaint made yesterday by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr.

Ogden) of an article in the Liverpool Free Press newspaper. I am satisfied that this is a proper case for me to allow a motion relating to it to have precedence over the Orders of the Day.

The Lord President of the Council and Leader of the House of Common (Mr. Edward Short): In view of your ruling, Mr. Speaker, I beg to move:
That the matter of the complaint made by the hon. Member for Liverpool, West Derby (Mr. Ogden) be referred to the Committee of Privileges.
I think that it would be in the interests of the whole House if it were decided that no further debate should take place at this point.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Maurice Macmillan: May I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, on another matter which may be one of breach of privilege?
In The Guardian today there appears a report of the Patronage Secretary referring to the proceedings of the Select Committee on Wealth Tax and a vote taken therein.
Perhaps I should tell you and the House, Mr. Speaker, that I have tried without success to contact the Chairman of the Select Committee—the right hon. Member for Battersea, North (Mr. Jay)—because I and, I think, all other members of the Select Committee were led to believe before we finished our proceedings late last night or in the early hours of this morning that all the proceedings were privileged, including any reports which might have been made to the Select Committee, any voting which might have taken place, and any discussion which might have taken place. until such time as the Report was published.
I have since been informed that these matters are to be considered privileged until such time as the Report is laid and that any reference to them after that could be a matter of discourtesy to the House but could not be one of Privilege.
As our proceedings in the Select Committee continued for some little time after the vote referred to in the report in The Guardian was taken, and as indeed we


did not rise until about midnight, any question of Privilege which might arise would depend upon when it is alleged that the Patronage Secretary made the statement which is quoted in The Guardian. I seek your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what is the present status of the proceedings of the Select Committee, reports which may or may not have been made to it and which it may or may not have voted down, and the details of voting and the details of proceedings.
As the members of the Select Committee were warned that we must not discuss those matters even with our senior colleagues, it would be helpful if you would give us your guidance, Mr. Speaker, as to what our correct line of conduct now is.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Treasury (Mr. Robert Mellish): In the early hours of the morning I was approached by the Press. I said that I had not any knowledge of the decisions or of the deliberations of the Select Committee to which the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) has referred. The member of the Press said that he understood that the Select Committee had rejected proposals for a wealth tax, to which I said I had no knowledge of this whatsoever. However, I said to the representative of the Press—we shall read all this later—"If that is the position, two Members of my party were absent from that Committee. They are on Commonwealth Parliamentary Association business. They were unpaired. Any decisions taken by the Select Committee would obviously have been taken by those who were in the majority but who, in my view, had no right to be in the majority."

Mr. Speaker: The Chair is put in a slightly difficult position through this matter being raised without the Chair having had the chance of ascertaining precisely what the facts are. However, as I understand it, the Report was laid during yesterday's sitting. Therefore, I think that no question of Privilege can arise, though it is a matter of courtesy that we do not comment upon such Reports until they have been published and all hon. Members are equally able to discuss them.

Mr. Peter Rees: Further to the point

raised by my right hon. Friend the Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan), may I suggest, Mr. Speaker, that it might be a matter for the Committee of Privileges to determine how and at what time the newspaper in question or the journalist who contacted the Patronage Secretary discovered, if indeed it was the fact—obviously it would be a breach of Privilege for me as a member of the Select Committee to discuss what happened—that the report of the Chairman was rejected by the Committee?

Mr. Speaker: This is, one hopes, the last day of this Session. I am not prepared to say off the cuff whether it is right for me to say that I shall rule next Session on a matter that has been raised this Session. If—I repeat "if"—I think that it is necessary, I may say something further about the matter today.

Mr. Macmillan: I think I made it clear, Mr. Speaker—at any rate. I hope I did—that I was not suggesting that a breach of Privilege had been committed by the Patronage Secretary. I merely suggested that, if there had been a breach of Privilege, there seems to be some conflict in the attitude taken as to the status of the Report.

Oral Answers to Questions — LICENSING ACT (AMENDMENT)

4.27 p.m.

Mr. Robin Corbett: I beg to move,
That leave be given to bring in a Bill to amend section 76(5) of the Licensing Act 1964.
This has more to do with dancers than with doubles and with the palais than with pints. The Bill is designed to assist 6 million people who go dancing each week. It is aimed at safeguarding the employment of 100,000 people employed in ballrooms and dance halls and 150,000 people who help in the running of cabaret clubs. It would also help to protect the already difficult employment prospects of musicians and artistes.
My Bill seeks to alter the damaging effects of a recent Law Lords ruling in the case of Carter v. Bradbeer. This means that a bar in an establishment with a music and dance licence and holding a special hours licence must not serve drinks


after normal licensing hours, except by waiter service. More simply put, the Law Lords ruled that what millions of people have been doing for 14 years since 1961—buying drinks over a bar in a dance hall or club after normal licensing hours—is illegal.
That decision was reinforced this week when the Lord Chief Justice and two other judges upheld in the High Court the decision of the Cardiff magistrates to ban over-the-bar sales at nine late night dinner dances in that city. Therefore in dance halls, cabaret clubs, entertainment centres, hotels and social and sports clubs people who like to mix and to buy drinks at a bar are now told that it is illegal.
It is worse than that. Not only is waiter service decreed, but, for example, the Chief Constable of Essex had laid down that even waiter-served drinkers must be dispensed from somewhere other than the normal bar.
My proposed Bill in no way seeks to extend the time legally allowed for drinking on licensed premises. Nor does it seek to increase the space allocated for drinking or to alter the minimum age of people permitted to drink. What it does seek is to enable millions of people who like a night out—often a late one, because of changed social habits and shift working—to continue to enjoy their entertainment in the same way as they have done for 14 years.
Unless the present position is corrected and restored to what I believe was the true intention of the House, millions of pounds of investment in leisure services—much of it out of public money by local authorities—is at risk. The private sector too, especially in major cities and seaside resorts, faces cost increases which would threaten closures and redundancies.
It has been estimated that to meet the full cost of a full waiter service after normal licensing hours in every dance hall and cabaret club could raise admission charges by half. It could mean 60p for a pint of beer and upwards of £1 for a gin and tonic or a whisky and soda. It is surely too ludicrous for words to contemplate such increases at a time like this.
Hotels and other places of entertainment, some of which have been developed

with grants from the English Tourist Board or the area tourist boards to provide cheap leisure facilities for tourists, will face crippling cost increases or will find businesses already on low profit margins becoming uneconomic. Making money out of our quaintness, as it is seen by some tourists, is one thing. Losing money by being quaint is ridiculous. It is the same with every palais and cabaret club in this land.
The law requires that each drink after normal licensing hours must pass through two pairs of hands on its way to the hopefully patient customer—those of the dispenser and those of the waiter or waitress. Taking the drink to the table is bound to cost more and is socially undesirable, in my view, as well as being for many people uneconomic and impracticable.
Six out of 10 marriages in this country still today are made in dance halls. People go there to mix, not to be pinned to a table.
The state of the law at the moment means that jobs are threatened. The very existence of much-needed leisure facilities could be at risk with less provision at a time when people are being asked to work harder and need to play harder to compensate. The end of this road for many dance halls and clubs is to become bingo halls and so increase the scope for this form of gambling.
To the man in the smart club, maybe this is of little concern. A snap of two well-groomed fingers summons an alert waiter. But for 1,500 or 2,000 dancers-wives and husbands, boy friends and girl friends—in a palais on a Friday or Saturday night that is not possible. Even if it were, is it desirable to employ vast numbers of extra staff at these unsocial hours?
The hard-working factory, office or shop worker does not understand why a pint of beer can be bought across a bar in these places at 10.29 p.m. or 10.59 p.m. but not at 10.31 p.m. or 11.1 p.m., and to seek to impose this will bring the law into disrepute.
It is for these reasons—reasons of both jobs and pleasure—that I ask the House for leave to introduce this Bill.

Question put and agreed to.

Bill ordered to be brought in by Mr. Robin Corbett, Mr. Kevin McNamara.


Mr. Bryan Gould, Mr. Bruce Grocott and Mr. Mike Thomas.

LICENSING ACT (AMENDMENT)

Mr. Robin: Corbett accordingly presented a Bill to amend Section 76(5) of the Licensing Act 1964; and the same was read the First time; and ordered to be read a Second time tomorrow and to be printed. [Bill 253.]

Oral Answers to Questions — STATUTORY INSTRUMENTS

Motion made, and Question put forthwith pursuant to Standing Order No. 73A (Standing Committee on Statutory Instruments, &amp;c.)

PRICES

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Scottish Electricity Boards) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 13th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]

PRICES

That the Compensation for Limitation of Prices (Electricity Boards) Order 1975, a draft of which was laid before this House on 27th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]

CONTROL OF FUEL AND ELECTRICITY

That the Fuel and Electricity (Control) Act 1973 (Continuation) Order 1975 (S.I., 1975, No. 1705), a copy of which was laid before this House on 29th October, be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]

SEA FISHERIES

That the Sea Fish Industry Act 1970 (Relaxation of Time Limits) Order 1975, a copy of which was laid before this House on 17th October be approved.—[Mr. D. Coleman.]

Question agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — LOCAL LAND CHARGES BILL [Lords]

Lords amendment to Commons amendment considered.

Lords amendment to Commons amendment:

The Lords agree to the amendment made by the Commons in page 10, line 35, at end insert:
which shall be subject to annulment by resolution of either House of Parliament",

but propose the following amendment thereto:

Leave out "by" and insert "in pursuance of".

4.34 p.m.

The Parliamentary Secretary to the Law Officers' Department (Mr. Arthur Davidson): I beg to move, That this House doth agree with the Lords in the said amendment.
The amendment corrects a defect in the amendment, moved by the right hon. Member for Crosby (Mr. Page) at the Report stage of the Bill, which was accepted by the Government. Unless he or the House wishes me to go into an explanation, I have nothing further to say.

Mr. Graham Page: I thank the hon. Gentleman for ensuring the correction of an amendment which he very kindly accepted from me on Report. It was entirely my fault that it was rather sloppily drafted, and I am very grateful that it had been corrected by their Lordships' House.

Question put and agreed to.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

Motion made, and Question proposed, That this House do now adjourn—[Mr. Coleman.]

Mr. Deputy Speaker (Mr. George Thomas): As hon. Members will know, this is likely to be a curtailed debate. That should be borne in mind.

4.30 p.m.

Sir Raymond Gower: I am grateful to the Leader of the House and to the Government for having made possible this extension of a debate which commenced at a rather late hour some weeks ago. I express to the representatives of the Government who are on the Treasury Bench today my thanks for their having done this. Nevertheless, it is very undesirable that a debate on Welsh affairs or on any other subject should be broken into two parts, separated by such a long period of time. It reflects again on the unfortunate arrangements which were made this year for this debate. A number of speakers have commented on it.
I sincerely hope that in the future there will be no repetition of what appears to be a relegating of the debate on Welsh affairs to the least convenient time at the last possible moment in a parliamentary Session. It is significant that we should be engaged on this debate at the very end of the Session.
In opening the debate the Secretary of State for Wales said:
These are difficult times for all of us.
He added, rather plaintively, I thought:
There is so much to be done, and the resources are so limited".—[Official Report, 23rd October, 1975; Vol. 898, c. 841.]
Everyone must agree with him and sympathise with him to some extent in his predicament.
At this moment, economic prospects for Wales—as, indeed, for the United Kingdom as a whole—are sombre, to put it in the most restrained terms. In the space of about 20 months, or about 550 days, we have travelled a very long way from the position which obtained when the Government took office in February 1974.
As my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) stated in his

speech, industrial production is significantly lower than then; manufacturing is at a decisively lower level than it was then the Government took office; inflation is very much worse; and unemployment is higher than in the lifetime of anyone less than 35 years of age. That is certainly the case in the Principality.
I repeat to the Minister that it is a matter for some deep concern that unemployment in Wales is higher today—except for one or two limited spells due to extraordinary conditions—than at any time in the lifetime of anyone here who is less than 35 years of age.
I regret that the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes) is not here at present, because I recall that he made some comments about these matters. I do not wish to be highly critical of him but he complained of the remarks of my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke in mentioning the high unemployment. The right hon. Member for Anglesey said that unemployment is high in almost every country in the industrial world, and he said that it was largely due to world conditions and to world prices. I wish that he and his colleagues, including those of them who are here today, had taken that view when the Conservative Government were in office just before February, 1974. But they did not. They assailed the then Conservative Government, accusing us of responsibility for a level of unemployment which was far lower than that which our country must now endure. We heard little then about oil prices and about world commodity prices from any Labour Party spokesman.
There would most certainly have been howls of anger, rage and passion if a Conservative Government were in power today about the present level of unemployment in the Principality. I can imagine one Labour Member after another asking Question after Question about the position. The Opposition have not acted in that way. Of course, we are deeply concerned about this vital matter, but we have not assailed and arraigned the Government at all stages because we recognise that a good deal of the trouble is international and that some of it undoubtedly arises from world conditions. However, I suggest that a considerable


part of the trouble arises from Government action in the past 550 days

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: To be accurate, it is 551 days.

Sir R. Gower: I am obliged to the hon. and learned Gentleman. I had not worked it out exactly. The Government are responsible in part because of their undue reliance on the social contract, which is seen to have been a dismal failure in the battle against inflation. I say that without relish.
The Government must also bear responsibility for the way in which the economy was run between the two General Elections last year, when unchecked inflation created a spurious sense of comfort and well-being in the minds of many people, and when increases in salaries and wages were at quite unrealistically excessive levels and certain to stoke the fire of inflation.
The Government are also responsible for the policies which have damaged, if not destroyed, confidence in industry at all levels, especially among those people who supervise, control and arrange the affairs of the smaller firms and industries in Wales. I do not wish to exaggerate the position. However, I can honestly assert that, throughout the years that I have had the honour to serve in this House, I have never been quite so anxious about the economic and industrial future of the United Kingdom as a whole and of the Principality in particular.
Unemployment is now beginning to bite savagely in that part of Wales which some hon. Members have described as the prosperous coastal belt. My own constituency is part of that coastal belt. Our unemployment problems in the past have not been on the scale of those which have obtained in some of the industrial valleys such as North Monmouthshire and Rhondda, or in Pembrokeshire and North-West Wales. But in the circumstances that I have attempted to describe, this industrial difficulty and the accompanying unemployment are beginning to have a savage effect even in those parts of the Principality which hitherto have been comparatively fortunate.
It is affecting established industries. I emphasise this because the Secretary of State took credit for and expressed some hope about the new and advance fac-

tories being set up in Wales. However, the degree of employment which they may provide is limited, and it is even more regrettable that some which have been built, including some of those for which the previous administration were criticised, are not yet allocated. Many of them exist only on paper. Others have been built but are still not occupied. But, even when they are built and allocated to new tenants, the degree of unemployment which they can provide is limited by their size, which in some instances is relatively small.
But we are now seeing a process where long-established major industries in the Principality are beginning to feel the effect of the present difficult conditions and are themselves being obliged to reduce their production. It is not that they want to do so, of course, but conditions are making them do so.
It is affecting the smaller concerns especially, and I remind the House that some 63 per cent. of all the industrial units in Wales are reckoned to employ fewer than 10 persons. It means that the Principality perhaps more than other parts of the United Kingdom is highly dependent on its provision of employment in relatively small industrial units, and it is these which have been hit most savagely by continued inflation, by heavy and, some would say, excessive taxation, and by new administrative burdens with which all hon. Members representing Welsh constituencies must be well acquainted.
We have had special debates on the position of the self-employed, and it may be, as was suggested in a recent debate, that there are some exaggerations. However, cases which have been brought to my notice reveal the extent of the burdens—the large amount of office work and the high cost of it all to the very smallest units. If we have many failures of these very small firms, the cumulative effect on employment in Wales could be very serious. I repeat that 63 per cent. of the industrial units in Wales employ fewer than 10 persons. They are very small units, and many of them necessarily are tender plants. They have not been long established. Some have been encouraged into Wales by the development area policies of successive Governments. Their growth owes a good deal to the initiative of those who started them, but


they have not had sufficient time to put down deep roots, and they have not long-established financial resources.
We adopt policies which bear heavily on such firms at our peril. There is a good deal of evidence that the policies which have been followed in the past 18 months and even, to some extent, those pursued by the previous Government have placed some of these firms in an extremely difficult situation.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: I might remind the hon. Gentleman that I, too, am a tender plant. I deeply resent his reference to me in my absence for a few minutes at the start of the debate. A number of his hon. Friends were also absent. I hope that he will withdraw the unnecessary remark that he made.

Sir R. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands completely the nature of my reference to him. I was being apologetic for having to mention him in his absence.

Mr. Cledwyn Hughes: Nevertheless, it was uncharacteristic of the hon. Gentleman.

Sir R. Gower: The right hon. Gentleman misunderstands the position—[Interruption.] I hope that the right hon. Gentleman will listen to me. I am trying to explain what happened. [Interruption.] The right hon. Gentleman is continuing a monologue which I cannot hear. I sought to refer to a comment he made at the earlier stage of this debate, and I realised suddenly that he was not present. I was apologising for referring to him in his absence.

Sir Anthony Meyer: Perhaps I can be of assistance. I was present at the time, and I heard my hon. Friend's reference to the right hon. Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes). I can assure the right hon. Gentleman that my hon. Friend was being most courteous and was in no way critical of him. It is possible that the right hon. Gentleman was misinformed by his hon. Friend the Member for Neath (Mr. Coleman) about what occurred.

Sir R. Gower: I am grateful to my hon. Friend. What is more, Mr. Deputy Speaker, I think that you can confirm that my reference to the right hon. Gentle-

man was an apologetic one—[Interruption.] I was in no way—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. I hope that we can leave this domestic matter now and return to the subject under discussion.

Sir R. Gower: I shall revert to my original point. The situation in Wales and especially in my constituency is dependent not merely on what we can do for the big units—the State-owned or large private industries—but on the help and encouragement we offer to reduce some of the excessive taxation and other burdens which bear heavily on some of the smaller units. We shall not increase the employing capacity of the Welsh industry solely by considering the big units. We must rely heavily on the smaller firms which comprise a formidable proportion of Welsh industry.
I hope that the measures that the Chancellor has announced on a number of occasions will be successful and that in the months ahead we shall see the situation improve. However, at present the position is sombre and for many people it is filled with foreboding. There needs to be a collective effort and I sincerely hope that it will be forthcoming.
There is a good deal of evidence to suggest that the employees of many Welsh industries who have perhaps suffered more from unemployment than people in other parts of the United Kingdom are aware of the position and have been cooperative is seeking to achieve agreements which will ensure the success of the industries in which they are employed. That is a gratifying sign which I have discovered in some of the industries in my own constituency. Perhaps it is a welcome and desirable relic of some of our past misfortunes. In general, some of the harsh labour disturbances and disputes which have discoloured and disfigured industry in other parts of the United Kingdom, have been absent in many parts of industrial Wales. I see that the Minister is nodding his head in agreement. I realise the bad position of Welsh industry, but all parties in Welsh industry are anxious to succeed.
I have been encouraged by conversations which I have had with industrialists, the Welsh CBI, trade unionists and officers of individual trade unions in my own constituency. There is obviously a great


deal of good will and determination in all parts of Welsh industry to succeed. The Government can cultivate that good will if the lack of confidence can be restored. There is also some lack of hope. Some people believe that the months ahead may be worse than those which have passed. Others believe that they cannot go on much longer. Bank overdrafts and the cost of credit play a major part in industry's prospects.
However, I am not wholly pessimistic. I hope that the Government will refrain from any temptation to impose new penal taxation, because I do not believe that at present Welsh industry can bear any more taxation.
I turn to the provision of alternative employment, which is a particularly difficult matter. I should like to pay a tribute to the work done by the Department of Employment and our other agencies. However, their ability to place people in suitable employment is limited. At present the vacancies are simply not available. I hope that the retraining which is taking place in certain centres will make a valuable contribution in this area, but again it comprises only a small part of the whole problem.
We need a general upturn in the economy, but we cannot expect that for some time. However, we must be ready for it and to that extent any increase in retraining which can be arranged will be advantageous.
I should like to refer to a matter which I have raised on a number of occasions—namely, the position of the airport at Rhoose which is in my constituency. I deeply regret that the Government were unable to answer or respond to the appeal of the consortium of Glamorgan county councils to give some grant to the vast capital expenditure which the ratepayers have had to bear without any Government assistance.

Mr. Fred Evans: I have reminded the hon. Gentleman about this matter on a previous occasion. He must bear in mind that in the first instance his own county council, the Cardiff City Council, refused to support Rhoose Airport. Therefore it is rather late in the day to shed tears now.

Sir R. Gower: Cardiff City Council has always been only a marginal part of

my constituency. My constituency has generally embraced the Glamorgan area rather than the Cardiff area. I accept that successive local authorities and Governments have been at fault concerning this matter. I also accept that on a number of occasions the development of civil aviation in Wales has been despite the activities of Governments and not because of their activities.
Last week I asked the Secretary of State for Trade some Questions. In his reply he quoted some figures which are indicative of how Wales has received no financial help concerning aviation. On 3rd November I was told by the Undersecretary of State for Trade that in England help had been given to all the municipal airports at Birmingham, Carlisle, Manchester, Newcastle and Teesside. The help extended to many millions of pounds and in the case of Manchester alone to £3 million. In Scotland the Glasgow airport had received £3½ million in the period since the last war. The Edinburgh airport had received £8 million. Aberdeen airport had received a grant, as had the airports at Inverness and other parts of the North of Scotland. However, Wales has received nothing. No Government have given a grant for any airport in the Principality since 1945, but large sums of money have been allocated to England, Scotland and, indeed, Northern Ireland. That information reveals that Wales has a special claim.
I am not blaming this Government for the attitudes of all Governments which have preceded them. This Government are only one of several which are guilty in this respect. By refusing to give a grant this Government have joined the list of guilty Governments which preceded them. As so much money has been spent in assisting the development of airports in other parts of the United Kingdom it is surely reasonable that something, however limited, should be spent from public funds on airport development in Wales.
The former Cambrian Airways also was developed without Government help by the initiative of local private business men who set up a Welsh company to offer air services from the Cardiff area. We are concerned that it has been gradually taken over by British Airways—formerly by BEA. We are worried,


because although it is not a vast part of British Airways and may well be regarded by British Airways as a relatively small part of its operation—something on the periphery—that is not how we regard it. It is the only considerable civil aviation activity that we have in the Principality. If British Airways regards it as a peripheral matter and one which is likely to be dispensed with, it will bode poorly for the future of civil aviation in Wales.
There is anxiety. This matter is important to my constituents, because 800 to 1,000 jobs are at stake at Rhoose Airport. People at all levels, including the trade unions concerned, are anxious about the matter. They are also concerned about the announcement that some of the administration of British Airways may be altered, because it will mean less employment at Rhoose.
I sincerely hope that the Government will do all in their power, first, to reconsider a grant to the Joint Committee of Councils which administers the airport at Rhoose and, secondly, to influence British Airways not only in keeping some service at Rhoose, but in not taking any steps which will substantially or significantly reduce employment at the airport.
I do not expect a reply to my next point today, but I hope that the Welsh Office will take note of it. There is great concern that when particular services have been sought by local industries—for example, services from Rhoose to Glasgow or to Brussels—the timetables and timing have been absurd and inadequate. Therefore, these services have not been supported as they should have been. There seems to be some substance in the statements which have been made to me about this matter. However, I must be fair. It is denied by those in British Airways to whom I have spoken and written.
Nevertheless, I hope that the Minister will consider this matter and do all in his power to help. We want a number of viable, scheduled services. We do not expect British Airways to run these services at a totally uneconomic level. However, when the services were run by Cambrian Airways Limited—an independent company—they increased yearly.

Perhaps for economic reasons British Airways may have been unlucky in the last year or two. Certainly there was no increase in services last year. I believe that there has been a modest increase this year in movements in and out of the airport. We hope that the Government and British Airways are aware of the importance of this matter to Wales. We do not expect them to regard it as all-important in the context of the United Kingdom, but it is important to us.
Aviation is a growth industry. We have far too little of it in the Principality. It would be a tragedy if the great efforts of many people should now be thwarted or that the industry should die an unnecessary death at this stage.
I hope that when we next have an opportunity of debating these matters in general there will have been a better year than last year. Last year was a savage experience for this country. I hope that we shall not see another year like it.

Several Hon. Members: rose—

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. Before calling any other hon. Member to speak, I should point out that if each following speaker takes 28 minutes there will be some very disappointed Members in this Chamber.

5.3 p.m.

Mr. Ifor Davies: The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) has raised the important issue of civil aviation, and in particular Rhoose Airport. I was a member of the Glamorgan County Council in the early days when it courageously took over responsibility for the airport. In the light of the delegations which we have met in recent days, I shall be glad to follow the hon. Gentleman on that subject later in my speech, because I sympathise with his argument.
The hon. Member for Barry in his opening remarks analysed the economy. That was in keeping with the remarks made by the Secretary of State for Wales who, in opening the debate, stated that the background to the debate was the state of the economy and the problems of its management.
It is equally important to emphasise today that the way these problems are dealt with will determine the degree of success that we achieve in coping with


the primary task of overcoming inflation. Therefore, our first priority must be a planned economy. But, as always, there are bound to be many different reactions to planning.
I believe that positive and constructive planning is an absolute requirement if we are to steer the economic ship of State through the sea of icebergs—ice-bergs in the form of the new, menacing, economic and inflationary problems referred to by the hon. Member for Barry. As I understand it, that was the timely message which came from the Chequers meeting with its new sense of urgency and unanimous call for a new industrial structure and investment.
The central issue is whether and in what way the productivity of British industry can be raised. This afternoon I wish to address myself particularly to the situation as it affects the Principality.
The level of employment in Welsh industry can be improved only by the introduction of new techniques and higher productivity. That implies the stimulation of investment, and that has been one of our great weaknesses in Wales.
At this very moment we are confronted with the great dilemma facing our greatest basic industry—the steel industry—which is the lifeblood of all our industrial activities.
The House will be aware that the British Steel Corporation, after a detailed and protracted study, produced its investment strategy, which accepted that, on economic, technological and sociological grounds, Port Talbot was the right place to expand to keep Britain competitive in the steel and tinplate markets of the world. The whole steel industry is still anxiously awaiting the Government's decision on that matter. We had evidence of that only yesterday when a delegation from Wales met some of my hon. Friends and myself. It was the widest representation I have ever seen in the House, being composed of local authorities, counties and districts, factories, trade unions and people vitally concerned with the industry.
I fully understand the Government's difficulties regarding this matter. But time is not on our side. Indecision and delay in revitalising the British steel industry has already given our overseas compete-

tors a huge lead in the international race. Last year Britain fell to eighth place in the international steel producers' league, and for the first time we were overtaken by France, Italy and China.
Most of the big steel-producing nations are forging ahead with expansion projects in which production is concentrated on large coastal plants using the most efficient processes.
In the hard world of steel economics, there is no sentiment. I saw this for myself recently when I visited Japan with a parliamentary delegation. A steelworks not far from Tokyo, with a similar work force to that at Port Talbot, produces three times the amount of steel, not because the workers are better or more skilled, but simply because they have been given the tools to get on with the job.

Mr. Donald Anderson: Would my hon. Friend confirm that the trade unions at Port Talbot have given firm pledges to reduce manning levels to get at least some way towards the current levels in Japan?

Mr. Davies: Yes, I confirm that. It is an important development.
I urge the Government, in the light of this situation, to give Port Talbot the tools to get on with the job by implementing the BSC's strategy. I am confident that management and workers will accept the challenge and will match up to any foreign competition.
This is an issue which affects not only Port Talbot. It affects the whole of South Wales industry, which in one form or another is interdependent on steel. In addition to coal, our tinplate industry above all is vitally affected. I say "our" tinplate industry deliberately, because West Wales has been the home of the tinplate industry for more than 200 years. The Velindre plant in my constituency and Trostre in West Wales stand as proud reminders of our great tinplate tradition.
The danger signals have gone up. Every day tinplate users are demanding better quality and closer tolerances, and the industry must meet these demands or lose the trade. The hot-rolled coil for the tinplate industry comes from Port Talbot and it is an absolute necessity to improve the quality of coil to meet customer


demand. If this is not carried out, it is no exaggeration to say that the tinplate industry of West Wales will face disastrous consequences. The future of the tinplate industry is therefore inevitably and inextricably bound up with what is to happen to Port Talbot.
In the light of the situation facing the tinplate industry in West Wales, I submit that development at Port Talbot takes on a new urgency. The issue is now of such grave national importance that it should be removed from the arena of any kind of battle as between Shotton and Port Talbot, a situation which I deeply deplore, and I am sure that I speak for the steel and tinplate workers of South Wales when I say that they, too, deplore it.
Shotton has been given an assurance that its position is safeguarded at least until 1981—that is six years ahead. That was confirmed in Lord Beswick's interim report which is to be found at column 1164 of the Official Report of 4th February 1975. I submit that the Port Talbot development should be allowed to proceed forthwith, in accordance with the BSC strategy, and the Shotton position, in view of the time that it has in hand, should be re-examined in the light of the market situation as time proceeds.
That, to my mind, would be the most sensible and realistic way in which to reconcile a difficulty which has arisen between North and South Wales, and is one of the causes for the delay in the Government's decision. The steel industry has suffered enough in the past as a result of delays and misdirected capital investment. I sincerely hope that the Government will be wise enough not to let this happen again in the present situation.
I turn now to another important issue that has serious consequences for the Welsh economy. This concerns what the hon. Member for Barry said about civil aviation and the situation in Rhoose Airport in particular. A few days ago, some of my hon. Friends and myself met members of the airport committee and we were deeply disturbed regarding the situation. Rhoose is the No. 1 civil airport of Wales and has been developed to international standards. Its importance extends far beyond the three counties of Mid, South and West Glamorgan which now own and

operate it. Its traffic is shared almost equally between scheduled services to many parts of Britain and Europe, linking up with world-wide services, and holiday traffic. There is also substantial executive travel linked with Welsh industry, and the airport has a vital role to play in the economy of Wales.
The financial burden is at present borne by the three Glamorgan counties, whereas the economic and social benefits are felt throughout the Principality. It is totally unfair that the burden should fall entirely on the Glamorgan counties, without any assistance from the Government. In 1975–76 the total deficit is likely to be about £1½ million, of which about £750,000 will represent debt charges. I ask the Minister to tell us why other regional municipal airports in both England and Scotland are in receipt of grants and Wales is treated differently. The situation is illogical and blatantly unjust.
The £5 million redevelopment scheme recently completed at Rhoose has made it among the most modern airports in Europe. It is capable, without extension or further expenditure, of handling up to 2 million and more passengers a year. I would remind the House that the industrial development of Wales has been due in no small measure to the attraction of new firms from other parts of the United Kingdom and from overseas.
Foreign investment has played a significant part on that development, and there are now 150 foreign companies in Wales providing employment for more than 50,000 people. This flow of investment is vital to the future of Wales, because the number of firms from within the United Kingdom that will be expanding in the next year or two is likely to be modest. Every encouragement should, therefore, be given to new foreign investment, and airport facilities are essential for this purpose. Nor should we overlook the fact that in the event of oil development in the Celtic Sea the airport will have an even greater role to play. In the light of all those outstanding facts. I agree with the appeal made by the hon. Member for Barry. The Government's decision not to make a grant to Rhoose, the only major civil airport in Wales, is to be deplored and must be challenged.
I remind the House of what is said in "Civil Aviation Policy Guidance", Command 4899. Referring to the Civil Aviation Authority, it says in paragraph 10:
It should encourage the provision by British airlines of services that will foster the development of the United Kingdom's trade and tourism and strengthen the balance of payments.
I am convinced that Rhoose Airport answers those conditions. It has an essential role to play in the strenuous efforts being made to improve the economy of Wales and to implement the Government's regional policy. It would indeed be a tragedy if, through lack of Government assistance, such a valuable public asset as Rhoose Airport, started by the old Glamorgan County Council and continued by a consortium of the three county councils, was forced to close instead of being put to much more effective use in the national as well as the local interest.
In support of this matter I quote the words of the Prime Minister at the Guildhall earlier this week:
We have to ensure that when world activity revives—and there are signs that this is beginning to happen—we are not precluded from putting forth our full efforts in export markets because of inadequate capacity in terms of investment.
In the spirit of that message Rhoose qualifies for full Government backing and investment, and I urge the Minister to use every possible pressure to correct what is not only a grave injustice to Wales but a damaging blow to the development of our economy.
In response to your appeal, Mr. Deputy Speaker, for brevity, I conclude by saying how much I welcome the announcement by the Secretary of State this afternoon of a further programme of advance factories, amounting to a spending of £3¼ million, together with what he described as his new policy in that advance factories could be let to firms already in Wales which can offer satisfactory additional employment prospects.
I have never understood why firms with excellent potential for growth have been stunted because they were operating in grossly inefficient premises and yet were prevented from being considered as candidates for advance factories. I am glad that this inflexible position has been changed. It should not pass unnoticed that the financing of this new programme

has been made possible as a result of help from the European Regional Development Fund. I welcome the assurance given by the Secretary of State for Wales that the Welsh Office is now playing a full part in all aspects of our participation in EEC activities and developing close relations with the Commission.
To this end it is a source of satisfaction that Mr. Gwyn Morgan, who was the Chef de Cabinet to Mr. George Thomson, has been appointed to the important post of EEC representative in Wales. I know that the House will wish him well. Mr. Morgan has a deep knowledge of Welsh problems and, with his wide experience in EEC, I am sure that we can look forward to his fruitful cooperation with the Welsh Office to the benefit of our own regional problems.

5.23 p.m.

Sir Anthony Meyer: I am grateful for this opportunity of taking part in the debate at this early stage because it will give me the opportunity to refer to some of the points made by the hon. Member for Gower (Mr. Davies) on the steel industry. I echo his words on the appointment of Mr. Gwyn Morgan to his EEC post, which I am sure will be of great benefit to the Principality.
The hon. Member for Gower made an eloquent case for going ahead with the British Steel Corporation's plans for Port Talbot. It is pertinent to point out that the Labour Party, and indeed the right hon. and learned Gentleman the Secretary of State for Wales, voted against those plans. The Secretary of State is fond of taunting me about having voted in favour of the Shotton shut-down. I can equally taunt him for having voted against the provision of extra jobs in Port Talbot. However, that is all water under the bridge.
The hon. Member for Gower said that we should not treat this as a Shotton versus Port Talbot issue. The trouble is that it is inevitable that it should be so treated because the Corporation's case for expanding Port Talbot is based on the rundown of steel making at Shotton. I have had no difficulty whatever in demolishing the figures on which the BSC based its case for making the hot-rolled coil at Port Talbot and transporting it to Shotton for finishing. I made my


views clear in a letter that appeared in The Times Business News three or four weeks ago. The BSC figures do not for a moment stand up to expert analysis. But what worries me is that at a later stage those figures could be used by the Corporation to demolish Shotton's right even to finish the hot-rolled coil from Port Talbot.
I am sure that the Under-Secretary of State for Wales in his reply this evening will say that he has no intention of letting up in the fight to keep steel-making at Shotton. Despite the great virtues in the Corporation's case, a case can still be made for maintaining steel-making at Shotton. This case is based on support contained in arguments advanced by the Corporation, on general social grounds and also on the ground of need to create employment. We now realise that the unemployment situation is not a temporary phenomenon brought about by the present difficult economic conditions, but that it may be a permanent condition of the British economy resulting from the massive transfer of manpower from productive gainful employment into service industries, local government and so on. In those circumstances it becomes more than ever important to examine every possible scheme aimed at the employment of large numbers of people in productive profitable work, whether in the public or private sector.
I had intended in my speech to attack the Government for their dismal employment record—

Mr. Ifor Davies: Before the hon. Gentleman leaves the subject of steel, perhaps I may be allowed to put this matter to him. The purpose of my speech was to draw attention to the serious effects on the tinplate industry in West Wales. I tried to make the point that the situation in Shotton and Port Talbot can be reconciled. I still believe that to be possible, and the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) will do a great disservice to industry in Wales if he ignores the tremendous effects on the tinplate industry and what will happen if we do not develop Port Talbot.

Sir A. Meyer: The hon. Gentleman must not get my arguments wrong. I

said that if we were to act on the basis of the Corporation's strategy, it would force us to make a choice between Shotton and Port Talbot. However, there does not have to be that choice, and expansion at Port Talbot can go ahead without Shot-ton's steel-making capacity having to be sacrificed. I want to emphasise the importance of creating additional profitable employment in asset-producing industry.
I intended to launch an attack on the Labour Government for the way in which they had allowed unemployment figures to climb to record heights. I also intended to quote back at them some of the things by which they had abused the Conservative Government of which I was a supporter. However, I will leave those matters aside. I wish to make one vital point—namely, that it would be possible to make a dramatic impact on the unemployment figures if the Government—any Government—were prepared to give priority to the matter.
We hear much talk about the disastrous levels of unemployment and we are told that we must deal with it at all costs. But nobody means "at all costs". It would be possible to create many new and profitable jobs in industry, though not by the kind of methods advocated by the Tribune Group with a form of Schachtian National Socialism, with import controls, rationing and all the rest of it. It would be possible to create those jobs on condition that our people were confronted directly with the need for a severe curtailment in their standard of living over the next two or three years. Such a curtailment in the standard of living not only implies that people will have less money to spend on drink or tobacco or foreign holidays but it means the necessity to tell people that they will have to take a cut in the social wage as well as face deteriorating standards in social services, educational requirements and almost the breakdown of the National Health Service. What I find very much less unpleasant is the imposition of charges aimed at bringing more resources into the provision of the social services.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: rose—

Sir A. Meyer: I cannot keep giving way. I promised the Chair that I would be brief and I intend to be brief.
Much could be achieved if the Government gave overriding priority to the creation of employment by releasing resources for investment and by making it possible for those who invest to look forward with confidence into the future and to invest profitably. In other words, the burden has to be shifted from industry to the consumer. This is a hard task, but it can be done. It might just be bearable. It would be unbearable if, on top of that heavy burden, the Government proposed to add the totally unnecessary burden of all its costly grandiose schemes for extending nationalisation. For example, the effect of the Community Land Bill, with its Welsh arm, is already being felt. Jobs are being advertised at a total cost of £500,000 per annum or more. There is also the gorgeous irrelevance of the Welsh National Assembly with its building, clerks, security guards, stenographers, canteen staff, cleaning staff and all the rest. All this is to be borne on the collapsing shoulders of the Welsh taxpayer and ratepayer.
I have said that I will stick to the time I promised to take, and I shall do so. I reiterate that the jobs can be created. Shotton can be kept as a steel producer in addition to Port Talbot provided that the Government mean what they say and that they put the creation of jobs above all else.

5.31 p.m.

Mr. Emlyn Hooson: The hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer) referred to the growth of the non-productive public sector in this country. He ended his remarks with an attack on the proposed Assembly for Wales and the employment of clerks, security guards, and so on. No Government have greater responsibility for building up the swollen superstructure of administration which is choking this country than the Government which he so slavishly supported between 1970 and 1974.
The so-called reform of local government, which he supported, the so-called reform of the health service and of the water services and the tremendous employment that those services have given in a non-productive sector, together with the enormous increase in the cost—it has

doubled in four years—is the secret of what is wrong with the economy.
The world recession is, of course, a reason for the economy of the United Kingdom being sluggish. However, the truth is—and it applies to Wales as much as to the rest of the United Kingdom—that the non-productive sector has become out of balance with the productive sector. I am referring to the productive sector divided as it is between private and public industry. Wales—indeed, the rest of the United Kingdom—will never get back on its feet until productive industry is more in balance with the heavy superstructure that has been inflicted upon it. When I opposed the local government Bill which was introduced by the previous Conservative Government I said on Second Reading that we were imposing on the British economy a load which it could not bear. We are now paying the price for it.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) referred to the tragic cuts of the past 18 months. Those cuts were inevitable because of what the previous Conservative Government did between 1970 and 1974. I hold no brief for the present Labour Government—do not be mistaken about that.

Mr. Kinnock: They could not afford your fees.

Mr. Hooson: I can afford it more than the hon. Gentleman. The truth is that the blame must be put fairly and squarely where it should rest. However much they might regret it, between 1970 and 1974 the Conservative Government put an impossible burden upon productive industry. What is the result? They can moan as much as they like about the self-employed. The self-employed are crushed by taxes which have inevitably been imposed to support that Conservative Government's superstructure. However good a job NALGO and the Civil Service unions did for their members—they did a super job for their members—they did more damage to the British economy in the process than ever the National Union of Mineworkers was capable of doing. That was a permanent contribution.
I turn to the savage cuts to which the hon. Member for Barry referred. We see the fruits of this process in the cuts that are now being imposed. Where are


they being imposed? Today no fewer than three examples of old people who have home helps have been brought to my attention. In the county of Powys a decision was taken at the Government's behest to cut down on all these services. There is to be a 25 per cent. cut across the board for everyone. It does not matter what a person's living conditions are like. I heard today of one lady who was deprived of some of the services of a home help on Monday and today she has been taken to hospital. It will cost the State more, but that is how the cuts are being imposed.
What is happening in Powys is happening in other places. In the same county 120 road workers are facing redundancy. No decision has yet been taken but that may well happen. They will, quite rightly, receive wage-related unemployment benefit, social security benefits and various other benefits. However, it will cost the public quite as much as if they had been kept in employment. The whole process of financing should be examined. What do we do? We pay them wage-related unemployment benefit and social security benefits and let them remain idle? That is what it amounts to because in this country the right hand no longer is aware of what the left hand is doing.
In education there are severe and savage cuts. For example, in my own county for the first time in my lifetime children are being charged 30p for a music lesson in school. If their parents cannot afford it, the children go without the lessons. This is one of the most retrograde steps imaginable.
However, do the public services exist for the benefit of the public or for the benefit of the services? We are reaching the stage where the public services seem to give the impression that they are run for the benefit of themselves.
Have there been any cuts in the swollen administration? None at all. Today who are the most protected against the effects of inflation? Officials, right across the board. It is the wage earners, the self-employed, and the productive workers who are bearing the brunt of all this.
However, the truth is that in principle there is no difference in the exchanges between the Front Benches. They are

pin-pricking exchanges as to who did what between 1970 and 1974. Basically, neither Front Bench has the guts or courage to tackle the real problem affecting this country, which is swollen administration. This is the added factor which makes it difficult, even if there is an upturn in world economy, for this country to pay for these services. Everything is already mortgaged, even North Sea oil. We are suffering greatly from over-manning.
The hon. Member for Gower said that there are certain aspects of steel production in Wales where production would increase if the tools were available. Surely it is the way in which the tools are used that is important. Let us compare the production at Llanwern with the factory to which the hon. Member referred in Japan. Is Llanwern inferior because of the tools it has? No, it is inferior in the way in which they are used. We have a great deal to learn about this. Surely our experience of the past few years is that when something is working well, as is the case at Shotton, it would be foolish to do away with it. Whatever modern developments we have in industry, surely we have learnt enough to realise that good industrial relations are worth all the tools that we can manufacture. One may have the most sophisticated industrial tools, but if one has poor industrial relations one's factory is a paper tiger. I should have thought that there was an overwhelming case, therefore, for keeping Shotton as it is.
I move now to another matter—Rhoose Airport. I believe that the Government need to take a longer-term view on this matter. In the present recession, although we realise how vulnerable we are in relation to so many things, it would be dreadful if we allowed the services which we shall need in a more prosperous day to fall into disuse. Rhoose is the only civil airport in Wales, as far as I am aware. There used to be another one, but it is no longer used except perhaps for private aeroplanes. However, Rhoose is the doorway from Wales for air services to Europe.
Now that we are in the Common Market, surely we shall need much greater integration between the Welsh economy and the general European economy. Therefore, Rhoose Airport is


important. Those of us who have visited Scotland—as I am sure you have, Mr. Deputy Speaker—have been amazed at the air services provided between the various airports in Scotland by light aircraft joining the main services elsewhere. Feeder aircraft of this kind could be used in different partes of Wales, such as at Valley in Anglesey and at Hawarden and Aberporth, to feed into Rhoose Airport.
Then there is the M4. Surely there should be an extension of that to Rhoose to make available more easily the facilities for the development of that airport.
The Government should not allow the only civil airport in Wales to fall into disuse. It would be a great blow to those who work there but obviously also a very bad blow for the future of the Welsh economy. Although I have no constituency interest anywhere near Rhoose, it seems to me from the national point of view that it is very important.
I turn now to agriculture. Conditions in agriculture this year are very much better than they were last year. Nevertheless, the incomes of small farmers are still very low, as are the incomes of farm workers. It is only in the last few months, I think, that the Government have really appreciated what I have been saying for a long time. That is that food production has been dropping in Britain and that as production drops inevitably a shortage is created, and the greater the shortage the higher the price. The Government are now paying for their foolishness in their first year in office in relation to agriculture. Once one allows confidence in agriculture to be undermined, as with all other industries it take a long time to build it up again. Some people are still cutting down on stock on their farms. The fodder situation is still far from easy.
What Welsh agriculture needs, like British agriculture, is a long-term statement and undertaking by the Government about what they want the farmers to produce and an assurance that they will sustain production. Whether the Government do this by better grants or the end product price in the shops is up to them. I do not worry about the method that is used to support Welsh agriculture and give it confidence, but what is absolutely certain is that this is needed.
What is also needed is reassurance for farm workers. When one considers the importance of the job that they do, one can appreciate that their average wages do not compare with average wages in other industries. It is time that this matter was put right. It also affects small farmers. I know many small farmers who have lived on very narrow incomes, and many farm workers. It is necessary for the Government to put this matter right, by putting agriculture on a sound basis.
I was all for a freeze right across the board, and particularly in the upper earnings bracket. I made no bones about that. If we had had such a freeze it would have enabled us to bring up the wages of farm workers and the income of small farmers to a more acceptable level in the country as a whole.
In conclusion I make one or two points of special pleading. I take the view that it is necessary in Wales to have a very active and encouraged private sector. This is vastly important. The way that the private sector is taxed is also all important. But the public sector is also very important to Wales for industry production. You, Mr. Deputy Speaker, no doubt have recollections of the days when you were Secretary of State for Wales and it was necessary in some areas—mine was one of them—to put in a good deal of public investment in order to encourage private activity there as well.
A good deal of the work was done by the Welsh Industrial Estates. They have a very good record over the years. As I understand it, they are to be absorbed on 1st January 1976 by the Welsh Development Agency. I understand that the staff of the Welsh Industrial Estates are still extremely uncertain about their own future. Perhaps the Under-Secretary will make a statement today on the future of the staff of the Welsh Industrial Estates, along the lines of the recent statement of his colleague the Secretary of State for Scotland. What will happen to the staff? It is very important that they be given reassurance about their future and that their expertise and contacts with Welsh industrialists should be utilised to the fullest extent under the new Welsh Development Agency.
My last bit of private pleading is for Mid-Wales. At a time of recession there is a tendency to pull in the horns. However, my experience in this House—and I


have seen recessions previously—is that one must prepare during a recession to make sure that when an upturn comes one can take the fullest advantage of it. The great danger today is that we are pulling in our horns so far that we are in danger of losing the opportunity for expansion when it comes.
I have already indicated where I think a good deal of the economies should take place, in an area which has not been touched by the Government at present. However, the Government should also take steps, in an area such as Mid-Wales, to extend the remit of the New Towns Development Corporation. It has the capability of developing something very much bigger. It should be used in other towns. The previous Government refused to do this, although it seems to me such an obvious step. It would not entail the employment of any additional staff. They could simply extend their activities to one or more other towns. It seems a very sensible step to take, but the present Government and the previous Conservative Government have been stupidly unwilling to take it. It seems that they prefer something much more grandiose, which Mid-Wales does not really require. The tool is at hand. Why not use it much more sensibly than it is being used at present?

5.49 p.m.

Mr. Neil Kinnock: Perhaps I may begin with a brief reference, even in his unavoidable absence, to the speech of the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Meyer), simply to place on record the fact that hon. Members on the Government side of the House do not accept any of the analyses he employed in his assessment of the present economic situation in Wales. The response to him is best summed up by repeating what has been said by the Confederation of British Industry. In August it was telling us—as it is telling us now—that the major reason for the downturn in investment proposals, the downturn in job opportunities and the general downturn in business confidence was the absence of buoyant demand. In the very same breath—indeed in the same paper, and, whenever one of the Confederation's leaders speaks, in the very same sentence as often as not—it tells us that it is not time to reflate.
That is the oldest economic tale we have heard from the Opposition. On the one hand, the description of and reason for the difficulty is given as a deficiency of demand. On the other hand, and in the same breath, the Government are required to continue a savage control of demand. All that that illustrates is the total bankruptcy of any policies for resolving our particular crises, either in the Conservative Party or in the capitalist ethic.
Here we are again, illustrating the idiocy of which Parliament is capable on some occasions. There is much talk of constitutional reform, and it is appropriate that we should be discussing this matter after having sat right through the night and in my case—and I am sure that this applies to other Members—having sat through the morning on a Select Committee and then at lunch time having attended a meeting affecting my constituency. Now we are discussing Welsh affairs at the very buttock of the parliamentary year. That seems to be the place to which Welsh affairs are relegated regardless of which party is in government.
I can only hope that in future parliamentary Sessions we shall manage to elevate the discussion of Welsh affairs to a higher priority. The way in which we are treated in this respect and the way in which the media discuss devolution by referring only to Scotland is turning me into something of a crypto-nationalist. In fact, I shall never be a nationalist because obviously I am much too sensible to fall into that trap and I hold the interests of the Welsh people too dearly, but I can see how the more paranoic of my countrymen may be forced into that view.
I want to discuss unemployment specifically in my county and the enormous additional difficulties which my county has encountered as a result of the rise in unemployment in the past 12 months. In Gwent, between September 1974 and September 1975, as the very useful "Employment and Industrial Trends" publication of the Gwent Planning Department informs us, unemployment rose by 97 per cent. to a figure of 13,760. Among juveniles it rose by over 100 per cent. between those two Septembers to 2,665. Although this latter figure is fall


ing, thanks to the implementation of new Government expenditure policies, to the extension of the Community Industries Scheme and to the continual efforts of the careers service in Gwent, there is still a very large number of schoolchildren who left school in July hoping for a secure future in the county of Gwent but still have no firm prospect of a job.
When that happens under a Tory Government, as the hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower) said, we on this side of of the House are loud in our condemnation of the Government. But however loud our condemnation, there is a kind of public resignation about a rise in unemployment under a Conservative Government. When unemployment rises under a Labour Government, whose commitment to full employment is far more resolute than that of a party whose major commitment is to a market system with all the vagaries, vacillations and whimsicality that that involves, we are not simply talking about a campaign to divert the worst aspects of applied Conservatism. We are talking about fundamental questions being asked about the policies which the Labour Government are pursuing.
Labour Members of Parliament, whether they are in the Government or on the back benches, who do not ask these questions and who are not at least as resolute in their condemnation and in their searching for answers under a Labour Government as they are under a Tory Government are not fulfilling the interests of their constituents; they are not maintaining the interests of their class and they are not being true to themselves.
What is apparent under a Labour Government is that the Government are approached ferociously by their own back benchers, in stark contrast to the general approach of Tory back benchers when a Tory Government are in power. I do not say that as a parliamentary debating point. I think it indicates a fundamental difference in the approach of our parties in this House to what we on this side of the House consider to be the overwhelming problem of our society—coming even before inflation in its need for resolution. I refer to unemployment among the people whom we represent.
In Gwent there are any number of figures available to emphasise the novelty and the depth of the problem we face.

In Blackwood in my constituency, unemployment has gone up from 8·4 per cent. to 14·9 per cent. In Risca the unemployment rate has gone up from 5·5 per cent. in this most serenely prosperous part of my constituency, to a unique and unprecedented figure of 14·4 per cent. The rise in total unemployment in Britain during those 12 months is 85 per cent. In Wales it is 72 per cent. As I said earlier, in Gwent it is 97 per cent.
Obviously, there is a particular cry from the county of Gwent which has long been regarded as the prosperous southeast corner of Wales. But now it has obviously shown its lack of resilience in the face of the economic storm which we face. Not that there have not been successes. But in September this year I had the blackest weekend in my political life when in 24 hours I met the trade union representatives and some of the management of over 1,000 people in my constituency who were either directly threatened with or had the sack as a result of redundancies in firms in and around my constituency. Fortunately, some of them escaped the sack, but others have not been so lucky. The fact that we could come to that brink of disaster in a constituency like mine is a lesson in itself.
I should like to know from my hon. Friend the Under-Secretary whether there has been a final conclusion in what I hope will be one of the greatest success stories of co-ordinated activity between the Industrial Department of the Welsh Office and resolute trade unionists in the Rosedale factory in Bedwas. The probability is that there is a great success story there.
I shall have to wait until the end of the debate to get a firm response, but if there has been a happy conclusion I would like to take this opportunity of paying a warm and genuine tribute to the outstanding trade union leadership in that plant and to the thorough and dedicated efforts of people in the Department of Industry in Wales before 1st July and those same people who are now part of the Welsh Office. I do not often hand out that kind of compliment to civil servants.
I should like to ask a few questions. First, has the Welsh Office any specific policy for encouraging the refurbishing


of the factory in Aberbargoed in my constituency, previously owned by Corah's, where 400 women's jobs were lost in the summer of this year, which was closed down despite the strenuous efforts of the local Labour Party and the trade union? Has my hon. Friend, in addition, any information about the vexatious problem of coal stocks in South Wales? I know that my hon. Friend has received deputations of coal miners and my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy is meeting the executive of the National Union of Mineworkers today. The NUM and other unions in the mining industry have made known their views on this problem in recent months. I hope the Government can give us a firm undertaking about overcoming this problem and removing the worries and fall in morale which accompanies the continual stockpiling of coal at pitheads in South Wales and at power stations.
The Gwent report, a very intelligent piece of work, concludes that the Government are looking for an upturn in world trade in the New Year and that everyone concerned with the economy in Gwent must ensure that the county is in a position to respond to any upturn at the earliest possible opportunity. As the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) said, the present depression must be used, unlike previous recessions, as an opportunity to promote structural and economic changes which will guarantee that future development is diversified and resilient enough to withstand any future economic difficulties. This is a tall order for any Government. It means the Government should not take refuge behind world trade difficulties or use the alibi that there are difficulties throughout the country, even in those areas with a traditional image of prosperity. The Government, especially the Welsh Office, must give special attention to creating opportunities for a take-off throughout Wales.
I would like to outline how the Labour movement believes we can overcome our problems. There must be continued attention to improve the industrial and social infrastructure. This goes without saying, but if there is a pause in the progress we have made since the war, we shall have to pay for it in the absence of future opportunities for development. I realise

that I am preaching to the converted, or perhaps even the desperate, but every hon. Member should take every opportunity, no matter how boring or repetitious it becomes, to stress that without improvements to the infrastructure in many parts of Wales, we are condemning whole areas to drying up and blowing away as living communities.
We do not want from the Government a repetition of previous carrot and stick policies. Even in the improved form of the National Enterprise Board or the Welsh Development Agency they are not enough. We do not want policies of cajolery, bribery, exhortation and inducement. We want development policies and we also want decongestion policies. If we do not bring people out of the congested areas of the country which have become ridiculously, uninhabitably expensive—areas like the Midlands and the South-East—we shall never be able to get a major and permanent industrial development in the depressed regions of Great Britain.
It is not enough to simply try to sponsor British capitalism which depends, in large part, on Government inducements and their underpinning, underwriting and guaranteeing of the funds which the private market is unwilling or incapable of raising for itself. As a Socialist Government we should be taking full advantage of this situation. We need a planned, organised industrial transition instead of the whimsical and sudden changes of the past. My right hon. Friend the Member for Ebbw Vale (Mr. Foot) has for years called for intelligent anticipation of major industrial changes but has seen the process start only recently. Anybody could see these changes. A child of five could see them and indeed many children have seen them to their cost. Intelligent anticipation will enable us to replace industries as they close down.
These are not dreamy Socialist aspirations or a romantic voice from the valleys. This is the only way communities in the valleys and other parts of Wales can be sustained. It is too late when the axe is hovering over the steelworks or the pit. We ought to be able to make five-year or 10-year forecasts of the needs and production potential of public enterprises. There should be no tolerance of sudden major industrial closures, especially in the public sector.
Nye Bevan once said that there was no need to look into the crystal ball when one could read the book. The book for the people of Wales is their daily newspapers and what they see every time they look down the valleys of Wales. Surely it must be within the capacity of those who have decision-making responsibilities to see that instead of making academic assessments and analyses and setting up boards as the economy is collapsing around them, they get on with the job of doing something before disaster strikes.
Improvements in the infrastructure, a policy of decongestion and development and a policy of industrial transition all add up to something that is anathema to many Members opposite—reflation.
Many people suggest that this is the very last time that we should be arguing for an injection of further funds into the economy. But there are any amount of private funds not being used in the economy simply because there is no direct and immediate opportunity of a quick buck being made. This money goes into various kinds of Government securities, waiting for an economic upturn, and a Socialist Government should be mobilising those resources for the protection of the people for whom this party has historically cared.
I am talking about making decisions. Are we a party whose answer to a broken finger is to amputate the whole arm or are we a party that will use the skill, intelligence and resources at our command to ensure that the finger is made as useful as it was before?
That is the real difference between the two sides of the House, between those who would let the affairs of the world take care of themselves and those who seek to be elected and to attain power in order to control the world for mankind.

6.10 p.m.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I am always glad to participate in a debate after the hon. Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kin-nock) has spoken, and particularly to welcome his conversion to what he described as a crypto-nationalism. I shall see whether I can arrange for the Cardiff office to supply him with a crypto-membership form. We look forward to his support in the coming months, during the

discussions on devolution. I am glad that he has at least identified himself as a warm supporter of devolution, both economic and constitutional.
I agreed with the major theme of his speech on the basic issue of unemployment. My hon. Friend the Member for Caernarvon (Mr. Wigley), if he catches your eye, Mr. Speaker, will want to develop that aspect, but, without pre-empting what he might want to say, I agreed entirely with the analysis by the hon. Member for Bedwellty, particularly when he pointed to the experience of the more prosperous parts of Gwent which are now suffering what many areas in Gwynedd have had to suffer for a long period.
The hon. Member mentioned the percentage increase in unemployment in particular areas of Gwent which have to face rates of 14 per cent. or so. There are areas of Gwynedd, such as Caernarvon, Holyhead, and Blaenau Ffestiniog, which have had to contend with unemployment levels of this kind under successive Governments. These towns have unemployment levels comparable with those that the hon. Member quoted for Gwent. Hon. Members, like myself, who have empty factories in their constituencies, who feel that they have been knocking their heads against a brick wall in the last two years in attempts to attract tenants into the factories—I mention the specific case of the Forgings and Fasteners factory at Blaenau Ffestiniog—want a specific date when the Welsh Development Agency will become fully operational. We are looking to that agency to provide the kind of public investment about which the Minister spoke and which has not been forthcoming from the private sector in large parts of rural Wales. Where it has been forthcoming, in all too many instances it has been with the kind of difficulties that have attended the firm of R. A. Good all, in Dolgellau, in my constituency. That company is a case in point—a company which can retain its existing level of employment for only a few more weeks, or, at best, months. It is that kind of company which could benefit so much from the flexible type of intervention which we are hoping for from the Welsh Development Agency.
I want the Under-Secretary to tell us when he foresees the agency being fully operational, and to confirm that it will


be able to intervene actively in situations of this kind. Does he agree that the setting up of production units in empty factories such as the one in Blaenau Ffestiniog should be a priority for the agency? Unemployment brings with it no only personal problems of redundancy but the problem of a sudden drop in income, when the earnings-related unemployment benefits run out. It also brings with it the social problems that we have faced for so long in large areas of industrial Wales.
I am very concerned about the impact that the cuts in public expenditure will have on social policy in Wales. To be unkind to the Government, I could say that the major act of policy for which they will be remembered is cutting public expenditure. Such cuts go much further, in their effect on the lives of ordinary people, than do any other policy decisions. There are the young children who will not be able to go into nursery schools and the old people who have had cuts in their home help services. The personal social services, yet again, are being subjected to severe reductions.
I am concerned about the unselective nature of these cuts, at the inability of Government to look at different districts to see whether there are areas of relative deprivation, and their failure to ensure that there will be no reduction in spending in development areas or special development areas. Instead, there is a blanket demand on all the personal social services in local authorities in Wales to reduce expenditure. There is no attempt to see whether the reductions will cause even greater social deprivation for specific problem areas than these areas have suffered in the past. I appeal, therefore, for greater selectivity and sensitivity in the reduction of public expenditure in the personal social services.
In an attempt to find out what is happening I have contacted all the county councils in Wales asking for a full list of the projects that have been cut back. With the commitments imposed on the social services by higher unemployment, there are many areas in which social workers are dealing with families affected by unemployment. They face a massive case load. In those circumstances, their efforts will become less and less effective.
In this kind of inflationary situation, the level of social security benefits is being increased from 17th November, but it is one thing to increase benefits and another to ensure that the level of services is maintained. This is a difficult choice for any Government. If, for example, we were globally to reduce the next pensions increase by 5p there could be a minimum transfer of about £20 million into personal social services throughout Britain. The Government must consider this point more closely. What is best for an old person in Powys or Gwynedd? Is it to have an extra 5p on the pension, or to have the home help for an extra hour or two each week?
Families are experiencing problems which need social support work and family help. The higher incidence of relative poverty is exacerbated by unemployment. Thirty per cent. more people in Wales are dependent on supplementary benefit than is the case in the United Kingdom as a whole. We are greatly concerned that the Government appear to be following the traditional approach of their predecessors in introducing and continuing means-tested benefits for local authority services. The low take-up of the exemptions from charges for these services must be of concern to us all. The Government are persisting with the system of imposing charges and granting exemptions, which means in most cases that the take-up is only about 50 per cent. and occasionally up to 80 per cent. of what it should be. That means that a significant proportion of people who should be getting a service free are not benefiting. It is similar to what happens when one asks for a bilingual form. One has to make a special approach, and fill in a special form to get benefit or exemption.
The Government are planning to introduce a new means-tested benefit in the form of the exemption from school transport charges. I was appalled by parliamentary answers this week from both the Welsh Office and the Department of Education. They imply that no work has been done on the costing of this new school transport policy, in real terms. I accept that it is only in the consultative stage, but I hope that the costing will be done properly. I see here another example of the Government's perpetuating the kind of charges policy, with the impact that


it will have on individual families, which was the hallmark of the social policy of their predecessors.
I wish to stress the concern felt by many of us that the primary school building programme will suffer next year in the same way as the nursery programme has already suffered. We had some defence of the primary school programme this year, but because of the higher percentage of children in Wales who have to go to older schools, particularly compared with the prosperous regions of the West Midlands and South-East England, the Welsh Office should make clear, in its negotiations with the Treasury on the school building programme, that there must be no cut-back, when it would mean more Welsh children remaining relatively deprived in the school buildings they attend.
I also stress once again the position of teacher training in Wales, and the particular need of the Bangor Normal College. I am anxious that in the ongoing discussions, when the future of the institution is being reconsidered, those involved should take into account teacher training and the demand expressed in the recent Welsh Council report for nursery Welsh-medium teachers. They should be taken into account because it is from such an institution as the Bangor Normal that we have seen an outflow of highly trained Welsh-medium teachers. One might also speak of an outflow from that college of Under-Secretaries of State for Wales.
Discussions are going on in the University of Wales on the possibility of setting up a Welsh-medium college in the public sector. That is likely to be recommended by a working party of the university. We have such an institution in existence in the Bangor Normal College. We do not want to destroy it and then have to re-create it.
We have already had an opportunity, in another debate, to discuss the health service generally, but I wish to emphasise the impact of health service cuts on Wales. I have already referred in other places to the attitude that the Welsh Office, as part of its policy for reducing expenditure, has felt compelled to take towards the Gwynedd Area Health Authority, which has more or less been kindly told "If you want a new district general hospital in Bangor, you will have

to slash community health provisions." That will particularly affect community health provisions in my constituency. It will not only effect the Blaenau Ffestiniog health centre; it will also severely curtail family planning services in Gwynedd. That is a regressive step, because it goes against what I would have hoped would be the attitude of the present Government, that wherever possible there must be a switch of resources from district general hospitals, from the hospital programme, into community health care and the personal social services.
I talked about that matter in another debate, when I called for joint financing of health and personal social services, to enable that kind of switch of resources to take place particularly as it affects the mentally handicapped. When it considers the allocations of the area health authorities in Wales in the next financial year, the Welsh Office should look carefully at the effects of its cost-cutting policy, to make sure that we do not find our community health services being severely reduced in the coming year.
A working party has been studying the reallocation of services within the health service in Wales. Will the findings of that working party form part of the new allocations for AHAs for 1966–67? That is an important question, particularly in Gwynedd, an area of historic under-spending under the old Welsh Hospital Board.
I come to the major question in social policy, that of housing. When he opened that debate, the Secretary of State for Wales said that 5,000 houses had been built in Wales in the current year, and that that was an improvement of 114 per cent. on the record of his predecessors. We are all grateful for that improvement, but when we contrast the figure of 5,000 new houses with the 60,000 people on council house waiting lists in Wales we see the real shortfall.
My party demanded, almost a generation ago—certainly a political generation ago—that there should be a yearly target of 25,000 in respect of new houses built in Wales. No Government have come near to achieving it. Not only have completions been cut; there are now cuts in the council house improvement programme. One estate in Blaenau Ffestiniog is suffering from those cuts.
There has also been a cut in the improvement grants programme. The other Under-Secretary of State—the hon. Member for Rhondda (Mr. Jones)—told me yesterday in a parliamentary answer that the finance made available to district councils for improvement grants in 1974–75, at £31·1 million, was to be reduced to £13·3 million for 1975–76. He added that the total value of applications made to district councils for improvement grants was not known, but it was estimated that total grants paid out by councils were £28·7 million for 1974–75. Although there is an increasing demand for housing improvement grants, the means for meeting that demand are being severely curtailed.
In addition, in local government mortgages we have seen a further cut. We all welcome the £5 million that the building societies are putting forward, but from the correspondence that I have had with the building societies on the issue I am not satisfied that the 800 mortgages that will be forthcoming as a result will go to the people who would have had local government mortgages. A letter from the building societies indicated that there would be a plan whereby a person wanting to borrow could take a letter from the district council to the building society, and that that would be some sort of passport to lending.
How will the plan work? Are the Government satisfied with the progress of discussions with the building societies? Are they satisfied that the £5 million will go to people who would have had local government mortgages? It is those people—people on low incomes, the self-employed, people who do not have a regular level of wages, younger people, first-time buyers, people going for older property—whom the Government have clobbered by the cut-back in local authority lending.
I have been told that the £2·5 million that has been allocated to help the construction industry in Wales is going to housing improvement work, which is labour-intensive, and that it will be shared between the public and private sectors. The Department should be more specific and tell us exactly where the money will be spent.
Over the next few months there will be a great housing debate in Wales, which will be the major issue as we come up to the May elections. I suspect that the Government have up their sleeve a plan whereby some great lendings will be promised in April, the beginning of the next financial year, that they may last for about a month, to tide the Labour Party over the district council elections, and then be cut later next year. If that is the Government's trick, I have trumped it by saying that.
As we face a deepening economic and social crisis in Wales, the areas of historic deprivation are the ones which have been hardest hit—areas such as Blaenau Ffestiniog, and the valleys of South-East Wales. The valleys are being hard hit with housing and educational problems. The hon. Member for Bedwellty spoke of coming north recently. I have been south in the past few weeks, meeting people in the valleys. As I meet people there, I find the strong feeling that the next few months will be crucial in deciding the political future of Wales.
The Government are being judged on their social and economic policies, and they are seen to be severely wanting.

6.30 p.m.

Mr. Geraint Morgan: I shall do my best, Mr. Deputy Speaker, to respond to the appeal which you made at an earlier stage of this debate, bearing in mind that this is a truncated debate and that, very shortly, along with the parliamentary Session, it will be brought to an abrupt end. In the circumstances, I shall restrict myself to two subjects. I shall first deal with agriculture, a subject which was referred to briefly by the Secretary of State in the earlier part of the debate on 30th October and rather more broadly by the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) this afternoon. I shall also refer to water, which, as far as I can recall, has not been referred to in this debate at all.
The hon. and learned Member for Montgomery said that he was not really all that concerned about methods of support. I do not think that we can leave the matter at that stage. I hope, in the course of my short speech, to make some specific suggestions for an improvement of the agricultural situation and to suggest some specific remedies.
I dare say that most Welsh, and, indeed, English, agricultural Members would agree that the greatest problem that has beset farmers over the past two years—I accept that this goes back to the previous Conservative Government—has been the enormous escalation in costs, especially costs of feeding stuffs and machinery. Allied to that, there has been the problem of what has come to be known as the green pound. I appreciate that decisions to adjust the value of the green pound cannot be taken lightly. Such adjustments inevitably have an effect on food prices. However, making all allowances, I think that the Government have tended to pussyfoot round the problem. I do not think that the Government are grasping the nettle as firmly as they should. A realistic revaluation of the green pound would go a long way towards meeting the difficulties of the farmers without any further, or any further substantial, action.
I can tell the Under-Secretary of State without fear of contradiction—I have no doubt that he will pass this on to his right hon. and learned Friend—that the farmers in my part of Clwyd, and, indeed, the whole of what used to be the county of Denbigh, feel more strongly about a realistic revaluation of the green pound than on any other issue. Therefore, first, there is an unanswerable case for the Government to take action immediately to close the gap that still exists between the green pound and the real pound. Secondly, the Government should arrive at a formula whereby the two pounds can be kept broadly in line thereafter.
I want to be constructive in what I have to say in this debate. Of course, I hope that I am always constructive. In fairness to the Government, there have been four adjustments to the green pound during the past 12 months. The last adjustment amounted to 5·8 per cent. and brought the green pound more closely into line with its present real value, thereby substantially reducing the monetary compensation amounts. However, those adjustments have not gone far enough. The fact that there have had to be so many adjustments in the space of 12 months—they have all been as a result of pressure brought by the agricultural unions—serves only to emphasise the basic injustice of a system by which farm prices have been fixed by an

artificially over-valued pound while the real pound has drifted inexorably downwards in value.
I was pleasantly surprised to learn from an answer I recently received from the Secretary of State that the disparity between the green pound and the present market rate of the pound sterling has been narrowed to about 5 per cent. That is, however, the best argument for closing the gap altogther. I understand that the most recent adjustment of 5·8 per cent. is likely to have only the most minimal effect on the cost of living—namely, approximately a quarter of 1 per cent. Such increases in food prices as would result from the complete removal of the disparity between the two pounds would be a small price to pay to stop the trend of a declining home food production and the risk of soaring prices later. At the very least, one should be entitled to expect a review of the relative values of the two pounds every two or three months. I hope that the Government will be prepared to concede that at the very least.
I think it is true to say that the urban public now appreciates the dangers that lie ahead and that jobs in agriculture and associated industries are unnecessarily at risk at a time of growing unemployment. One example can be drawn from my own constituency. As a result of the cut-back in milk production in the Vale of Clwyd, nearly half of a 100-strong creamery at Llandyrny, near Denbigh, will be laid off before Christmas. The possibility of that redundant staff being redeployed elsewhere in the Vale of Clwyd is remote in view of the continuing increase in the level of unemployment and the relatively few large industrial enterprises in the area.
In tins context, we cannot leave out of account the fact that last September Welsh unemployment reached nearly 76,500, or 7½ per cent. Those are the worst figures since the Second World War.
Were it not for the shortage of time I should be tempted to say more about the difficulties of the dairy farmers, who are, of course, the backbone of the Welsh agricultural economy. Suffice it for me to say, entirely without prejudice to the green pound issue, that the price of milk to the producer should be raised immediately to a level at least sufficient to


arrest the current decline in milk production. That decline has been very marked in Wales, where the number of milk producers has fallen by no less than 7½ per cent. in the past year alone. It is doubtful whether the measures recently announced whereby there will be an increase in the price of milk in two stages this autumn will have that effect. However, giving the Government the benefit of the doubt, those measures will do little, if anything, to restore the level of milk production to that of a year ago.
There are two further policies that, with respect, the Government could consider with advantage in an effort to assist agriculture. I have advocated one such policy many times in debates in the Welsh Grand Committee, but I do not think that I have had a reply to my suggestions so far. Bearing in mind that it is the meteoric rise in the cost of feeding stuffs more than anything else that has been the cause of agricultural difficulties in the past two years, there is a strong case in my view for the reintroduction of something like the old "feed formula". That formula was applied to pig production only, when it was in operation, but it could properly be applied as a temporary measure to other sectors of agriculture.
I am conscious of the fact that the formula was abandoned by the previous Conservative Government as part of a package deal with the Community some two and a half years ago. If I may say so, it is not a move for which I would give the Conservative Government any very good marks. I see no reason for our not now seeking the permission of our Community partners to re-introduce, at least for a limited period between now and the end of the transition period, something similar to the feed formula.
I would urge the Government to give favourable consideration to the recommendation made by the NFU in a recent statement, in which it said that the Government should commit themselves to the principle of intermediate reviews of agricultural support prices so long as the rate of inflation remains above 10 per cent. per annum. Unhappily, that is likely to remain the situation for some time. As the NFU has rightly pointed out, an arrangement of that kind will give

to agriculture no more than the right enjoyed by other industries to apply to the Price Commission for increased prices when input costs reach a certain level.
I turn briefly to the issue of water rates. It is especially appropriate that some mention should be made of the matter in this debate not only because we have suffered a far greater increase in the water rates in Wales in the past 18 months than in any other part of the United Kingdom, but more particularly because the report of the Daniel Committee appointed by the Secretary of State to examine the problem was let loose on the world a few days after the House rose for the Summer Recess. As yet, therefore, we have had no opportunity of discussing the Committee's recommendations.
At the same time, there is intense public interest in Wales as to what steps, if any, the Government propose to take pursuant to the Committee's recommendations, and also in respect of the sewerage rates as they apply to premises that receive no mains sewerage services. There are many such premises in rural Wales. As evidence of this intense public interest, when I spoke to some ratepayers on this subject at Abergele in my constituency nearly 400 people attended, an appreciably higher number than came to all my last General Election meetings put together.
The fact that the Judicial Committee of another place only recently considered an appeal on a matter of sewerage rates—it was a consideration of the legality of the levy of a sewerage rate in respect of premises in respect of which no service was being provided—and the fact that judgment has not yet been given in that case precludes me from expressing any view on the law as it stands.
That in no way inhibits me, however, from asking the Minister for an assurance that, whatever the result of the appeal in another place, the obviously just principle of "no service, no rate" will be adopted, if necessary by means of legislation.
To turn to the subject of water and water charges, I have great confidence in the integrity of the Secretary of State on this issue. When, at that meeting I have referred to in Abergele, I was asked


whether I thought that the Government would implement the recommendations of the Daniel Report, I replied that I was sure that they would do so, because these astronomic charges have been a matter of grave concern to members of all political parties in Wales. I hope that my confidence was not misplaced, and that the Minister will be able to enlighten us, either during the course of this debate or in the near future, about the action the Government propose to take—if not immediately at any rate within the next few months—consequent upon the Daniel Committee's recommendations.
One proposal made by the Daniel Committee which appears on page 65 of that brief report is:
consideration should be given to the early introduction of a revised scale of minimum charges to deal with the problem of those consumers who use small amounts of water and have to pay extraordinarily large sums because their present charges are based on the high rateable value of their premises.
This would appear to be a highly desirable reform, not only in Wales but throughout the United Kingdom. It is particularly desirable in Wales because of the especially high incidence of water rates there. I am sure that thousands of Welsh ratepayers will be glad to learn what steps the Government are contemplating in this direction.
I turn now to Recommendation (iv) on page 65 of the report which reads:
Consideration should be given to extending the use of meters to all consumers whose bills for water are large enough to justify the cost of metering.
If I remember rightly, the Labour Party when in opposition did not take very kindly to the clauses on metering in the Water Bill while it was going through its processes in this House in 1973. I think I can say that this would be a reform that would commend itself to a large section of the people. I hope, therefore, that the Labour Party will have had a change of heart on this issue, more particularly as this change is specifically recommended by the Daniel Committee.
The next recommendation I should like to refer to is Recommendation (vii), also on page 65 which, among other things, states:
consideration should be given to the need for giving the water authorities greater freedom of action in matters of borrowing.

No Welshman has been more critical than I of the apparent lack of financial expertise on the part of the Water Development Authority. In fairness to the authority, however, it should be emphasised that it has been statutorily obliged, for reasons which I am bound to say I have never understood, to borrow money in the dearest markets. This is something that could be remedied swiftly by the acceptance of the recommendations.
In my references to recommendations by the Daniel Committee I must of necessity be selective and I am only drawing attention to those which I feel could be the subject of early action by the Government. I do not intend to become enmeshed in the proposals that the Committee makes with regard to the powers or functions of a possible future Welsh Assembly with regard to Welsh water services, depending upon whether or not such an Assembly is granted executive responsibility over water. That is something which can be more properly considered when we discuss devolution in the next Session.
I would like to ask the Minister for his observations on the last two recommendations in the report. The first of those is that if the Welsh Assembly is to have only advisory responsibility for water, or if the present organisation is to continue unchanged, the Secretaries of State for Wales and the Environment, respectively, should be given the power to direct a water authority to operate a levy subsidy scheme and to reduce charges to Welsh National Water Development Authority consumers to a level not more than 10 per cent. above the national average. What is the likelihood of such a scheme being adopted?
I would like the Minister's views on the last recommendation—perhaps I might call it the sting in the tail of the report—namely, that as a strictly interim measure, an Exchequer subsidy sufficient to achieve that objective should be given to the Welsh Water Authority. I do not expect answers to all of these questions at the end of the debate but I hope that the Minister will accept that they are serious inquiries commanding considerable public interest. If the Minister cannot reply to them tonight I hope that he or his right hon. and learned Friend will do so by way of correspondence with me as soon as possible.

6.45 p.m.

Mr. Fred Evans: The issue of unemployment has rightly played a considerable part in this debate. The area mentioned by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) lies within the catchment area of my own travel-to-work area at Bargoed. It has become a trite observation that for the person who is unemployed it is 100 per cent. unemployment, not 1 per cent. or 2 per cent. or whatever statistics we may want to fling about.
One of the interesting things is that in this place there is a tendency to recognise the world situation while in Wales we have strident voices raised which pin everything on the Labour Party, whether in or out of office. It is the Labour Party which is responsible if there is a dole queue. If Mrs. Jones' sink cover is faulty, it is the local Labour Party that is responsible and so on.
The problem of government in Wales will rest—when talking of the social services—on production, investment and the wherewithal to carry out the multifarious demands being made upon a Labour Government. Equally, the political institutions which may be envisaged for Wales will depend upon the economic base provided for those institutions. I have always believed—I welcome the fact that the Welsh Development Agency has some teeth—that we should have had direction of industry into the regions, regardless of the outcry—and that we should have had the establishment of Government-sponsored factories, not advance factories, long ago at the time of the setting-up of industries in the regions. When we look at the recognition of the world phenomenon of recession, and recognise the tragedy of the individual involved in probably one of the most traumatic experiences in life, that of being unemployed, we must realise that there are other areas which are also severely hit.
While the figures quoted by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty are accurate and apply throughout the whole of the valley which he and I share as representatives, there is, nevertheless, in London a chronic situation with an unemployment figure, in Poplar, for example, of well over 12 per cent. It is not an isolated phenomenon for Wales. Those people in Wales who would like

to treat it as such, and use the Labour Party as the whipping boy for any and every cause of disaster, do no good to Wales.
The control of unemployment and of inflation are very important issues for Wales, but towering above these at the moment is the question of what is to happen to the political institutions in Wales.
As you are aware, Mr. Deputy Speaker, there stands on the Order Paper, in my name and the names of my hon. Friends the Members for Bedwellty and for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), an Early-Day Motion giving an opportunity to hon. Members to express some kind of opinion as to the road we ought to tread if we want to find a solution acceptable to the regions within this country.
This Early-Day Motion has already attracted 60 signatures, drawn from Scotland, from Wales, and from every region of England. There are signatures from Members of Parliament in Wales and from expatriate Welshmen representing English constituencies, so that it is a widespread, representative view held in the House of Commons. It will, I do not doubt, attract further signatures, possibly realising about 100, which would be a very substantial representation of a point of view.
This feeling has grown up because we have in Wales a very ambivalent attitude and a great ambiguity of speech in talking of these things. It is being openly claimed that a political institution such as a Welsh Assembly will be treated as something on the way not simply to a Parliament for Wales but to separatism for Wales. Most of the Welsh people will have no part in this. If evidence is required, I have letters here which I have received from all over Wales, which amply support my contention.
I have one from a senior civil servant who, because of the terms of his employment, is unable to divulge his name. He has expressed his anxieties in a letter to The Times, which he sent to me. He is disturbed because he feels that the Labour Party has not more urgently and more frequently got over to there public the dangers of the drive towards separatism by elements in Wales.
I have a letter from two professional people in the constituency of the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans). I


am glad to see that in this letter there is a willingness on the part of the writers to acknowledge some debt of gratitude for the benefits they have received. Although these people are Welsh, they were educated at London University. One is a doctor and the other a lecturer in a college of education. They are both highly qualified, and acknowledge the debt they owe to England for the provision of opportunities. They add:
Our two sons have been educated in England, at considerable sacrifice to us, because we were not happy about the educational system in our area. They are now at London University also, and have expressed their reservation about returning to Wales to work, in view of the increasing anti-English feeling which is being generated here by a small minority, influencing the apathetic majority.
Whether that claim is accepted by hon. Members opposite or not, it is a statement in a signed letter from Carmarthen, therefore notice must be taken of it.

Mr. Dafydd Wigley: Would the hon. Member care to confirm that the doctor is on the short list for the Labour Party nomination in the Carmarthen constituency?

Mr. Evans: I have no acquaintance whatsoever with this doctor. I can assure the hon. Member of that.

Mr. Kinnock: He would make a very good Member of Parliament.

Mr. Evans: I have a letter from Swansea, in which practically the same kind of argument is made. The writer speaks from personal knowledge of the Swansea area. He says that most people in the area object on grounds of principle and will not have any part in it. People are not backward in writing to my party, because they feel that the Labour Party has not done enough to point out the dangers.
I have a letter here to the Minister responsible for producing any proposals, ticking him off for alleged dereliction in this direction. I am interested in the future prosperity of Wales and the greatest happiness of most of its people, and I am not over-concerned as long as we see clearly where we are going and the implications of what we are doing.
We must pose the question whether the economic resources are sufficient to support a separatist Wales. It is being

claimed by some that they are, as was shown by the speech of the hon. Member for Carmarthen during the recess, in which he said that he is not anti-English but anti-British. On television last Friday, when asked by me about this, he said that he wanted regions in England to have the same good things as Wales, which was very magnanimous of him but did not tell us very much about anything.
When it was suggested that a Welsh Assembly could bring education under its aegis, including the terms of appointment, salaries, and the negotiating powers of the teaching profession, the national daily, the Western Mail, carried a banner headline indicating that teachers were cool towards this idea. It quote the field officer of the National Union of Teachers in Wales as saying that for many years it had worked towards evolving a policy of comparable benefits, salaries, and so on, throughout the United Kingdom, and that any kind of attack on this policy would have devastating results.
This week the National Farmers' Union in Wales has recognised that the whole of the United Kingdom is its market and that its members stand to suffer if the United Kingdom is not regarded in that light.
Some very interesting questions arise from this argument. Recently, at the Guildhall, the Prime Minister stated something that a number of us on the Labour benches have been urging for longer than we care to remember—that the key to Britain's prosperity is the energy situation.
I well remember the time when all coalfields operated on a regional basis, so that the wages and conditions of miners working in pits in Scotland, in Wales, in the Midlands and elsewhere were essentially different. It took a long and hard struggle, after nationalisation, before it was possible to evolve the National Union of Mineworkers and a system whereby miners were given grades and could move from one area to another, carrying their grade with them.
Are we now to be faced with a situation in which, at a time when vast developments are taking place—such as the one at Selby, where there is a coalfield with 100 million tons of coal, and seams 12 ft. thick requiring a double cut—there is to be a return to the kind of regionalisation


that we knew in former days, with differentials in wage structures, different trade union organisations, and so on? I believe that it is right that such fears should be expressed.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: I speak as an active member of the Transport and General Workers' Union. The hon. Gentleman has given us a catalogue of various organisations in Wales which are against devolution. Can he explain why the TUC in Wales has repeatedly supported legislative devolution, as has the NUM, and has now demanded greater economic powers for the Welsh Assembly?

Mr. Evans: The hon. Gentleman must do his own research—but fears have been expressed by someone in that union who is a little senior to the Welsh Executive, about the effect of separatism on his union.
We have to face this problem. We have farmers expressing their views. We have teachers expressing their views, and I have no doubt that all other public servants will follow. In industry, too, this is the point which must be brought home.
I have read the studies produced by Plaid Cymru, and I have seen no hard documentary evidence to support any claim that the existence of a separate Wales would not be other than devastating for the country in economic terms. I am open to being convinced to the contrary. But what the Welsh people have to bear in mind is that the multifarious services for which a clamour is going up here tonight are such that Wales must depend on the economic base of that country, and that if that is unsound, all goes.
The Welsh people had better start asking themselves some questions, just as certain trade unions are. They had better start asking themselves whether such an economic base could successfully sustain even the levels of social benefits for people who are unfortunate, like those referred to by the hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas). That is a serious question. If people are laying claim to power, we are entitled to know what they intend to do with power. This has been preached by the Labour Party in Wales long enough. Let us see what alternatives can be produced. I am sure that many people re asking this question and are convinced

in their minds that we shall see a drift towards a lower scale of social benefits such as those that we see in southern Ireland.

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Rubbish.

Mr. Evans: It is all very well for the hon. Member for Merioneth to say that. People forget that it is not long since his party issued a pamphlet announcing to the Welsh people "A rich Wales, or a poor Britain?" I suppose that the hon. Gentleman's party thought that Celtic oil, provided that it was used greedily for one section of the country, would lead to an isolated prosperity inside a bigger entity. That pamphlet has been conveniently forgotten. People like me asked, "What oil?" Lo and behold, like a dream vanishing in the dawn, most of the oil rigs have been withdrawn from the Celtic Sea and serious doubts are being expressed about the volume of oil which could be found and its contribution to the total energy needs of the country.

Mr. Wigley: Without going in detail after the oil, but bearing in mind that a member of the hon. Gentleman's party only yesterday made a major speech on its importance, I remind the hon. Gentleman that this year people in Wales will be £240 per capita more in debt as a result of the policies being followed by this Government. The Government may argue about whether we can establish a rich Wales. What is certain is that we are going towards a bankrupt Britain.

Mr. Evans: In a world with shrinking communications, anyone suggesting that people can be isolated in little areas of prosperity is living in the same realm of fantasy as the man who spells his name with five or six "fs". A week ago last Friday, there appeared on the television programme "Outlook" a man who wanted to set up little enclaves in Wales with monoglot Welsh people. Then there was someone from Aberystwyth University who said, "No. Rather than that, we must penetrate every home in Wales." That is the kind of arrogant view that we hear expressed when these matters are discussed. I shall not be so unkind as to refer to the devastating article in today's Western Mail on the activities of that party and its language section, most of whom are members—

Mr. D. E. Thomas: Is the hon. Gentleman saying that our party has a language section? May I remind him that ours is a political party which has been campaigning for 50 years—

Mr. Evans: I have no doubt in my mind that nearly all the members of Cymdeithas Yr Iaith Cymroeg are members of the hon. Gentleman's party. There is a great deal of interlocking. It creeps out in all sorts of directions. There is this urge towards autocracy under the name of devolution, with a step to an assembly, another to a legislative assembly, and so on. Even during the sacred week in North Wales when we held a referendum on the question whether the pubs should open on Sundays, we saw on television lady members of the hon. Gentleman's party saying, "Wait until we get our Welsh Assembly. We shall close all the pubs on Sundays."

Mr. Deputy Speaker: Order. If the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) goes on long enough, he will close the debate.

Mr. Evans: I apologise, Mr. Deputy Speaker. Seriously, though, we must have an explanation, not from these benches, about various areas of public expenditure. In Wales, we want a detailed examination, by those who lay claim to power, of the way in which they could support what has appeared in so many of their declarations—the urge towards building up Wales as a separate entity.

7.7 p.m.

Mr. Ian Grist: I hope that the hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) will forgive me if I do not immediately take up the main theme of his speech. However, I shall have one or two comments to make on it later in my speech.
In present conditions, this is an extraordinary, if not a debilitating, debate. This is the first time that we have had a chance to review the performance of the Secretary of State and the Labour Government—apart from March 1974, which was what might be described as a starting point—and it is a thoroughly unsatisfactory situation. I am sure that everyone present will agree about that.
Here we are, in this period of Labour Government, and every hon. Member has

hair-raising stories to tell about unemployment, and about factories which lie empty in his constituency. In my own, I have a 50,000 sq. ft. advance factory lying empty. Unfortunately, I cannot see it being filled for some time.
Everyone who can read and count will now realise that this Government have failed at every turn to take the right action until they have been forced to do so by the pressure of events and facts.
First, we had the interregnum period last year, when there was a grovelling desire to seek office. It was not a matter of seeking power; it was simply a matter of seeking office. Now that reality is breaking through, I cannot think that anyone is surprised about the difficulty experienced by Labour candidates in South Wales in holding on to any local authority seat which comes on the market.
The second reason for delaying action was the lack of capacity of a disastrously divided party to take any action until it could not escape doing so. At the time of the last election we heard Labour Members rabbiting on about the need for strong leadership and a clear majority. We then had a referendum on the Common Market, which certainly was no example of clear leadership and a determined use of a majority in the House of Commons. What a farce it was. At last we are receiving money from the Common Market to help Wales, which is probably suffering more than any other part of the United Kingdom, apart from Northern Ireland, from the present economic circumstances.
I am surprised that the Secretary of State is not present today. There may be a good explanation for his absence. If so I should be glad to hear it. However, he opened this debate some days ago, and we are at present having a continuation of that debate. We are debating the Secretary of State's Department, and in my view he should have the courtesy—

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): My right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State is leading a parliamentary delegation. I understand that the hon. Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) is engaged in similar activities.

Mr. Grist: That is most interesting. However, I take it that the Secretary of State has gone in another direction, because I saw him in the car park earlier this morning. I think I can guess where he has gone. Indeed, if I am correct in my assumption I rather envy him. In his February 1974 election address to his constituents the Secretary of State said that the Shah of Persia could call the tune and two Cabinet Ministers would go running to St. Moritz, Switzerland.
I do not know whether that was an "Americanism", or his way of explaining to his constituents where St. Moritz was situated. We do not hear about the Secretary of State being concerned about Cabinet Ministers going to Tehran or bowing to princes at airports. Oh, no. We are grateful to have the loan of any money we can lay our hands on, to make sure that Welsh water flows.
We should be grateful to the private sector in Wales. There has been an increase of 60 per cent. in exports from Wales during the past two years. That increase has been largely due to the private sector and not to the State sector.
We must also pay tribute to the work done by the Development Corporation for Wales. However, still the Government refuse to face the facts or to take the steps which they will be forced to take in worsening circumstances.
When shall we hear a clear announcement about the future of the steel industry? I believe it right that people working in that industry should be given a firm indication of what is happening. They have lived under a cloud of uncertainty for too long.
The autumn edition of British Steel says:
Until the Shotton-Port Talbot decision is taken, planned investment at Port Talbot cannot be made, in the past year costs for the proposed Port Talbot development have risen by about £119 million".
If that figure is correct, it indicates an incredible waste of money.
What will happen to Rhoose Airport? At a time of soaring domestic and commercial rates, will the ratepayers of Glamorgan continue to bear the crushing and unfair burden of servicing the charges for their airport. I hope that the Minister will be able to give a satisfactory answer to this point.
The people of Cardiff have experienced some enormous disappointments in the past year. For instance, there was the failure of British Rail to establish its western headquarters. Can the Minister give an assurance when, and if, the announced move of defence and other Civil Service staff to Cardiff will take place? There have been some extremely unsettling and disturbing reports on this matter, and they have not been aided by racialist statements by the Plaid Cymru representative in my own division. However, I doubt whether that will deter anyone.
We should also be on our guard, as the hon. Member for Caerphilly warned, against a set of proposals which the Government are to introduce soon. I am obviously referring to devolution. We are of the opinion that the Secretary of State is one of the few Government Ministers who is deeply committed to a Welsh Assembly. When he wrote to his own constituents in February he described it as growing and developing as an instrument of government and spoke of
its powers being shaped in the light of experience and democratic needs.
That is rather grand language, but what does it mean? In my view it means that it is anticipated that a Welsh Assembly would continue to grow and accumulate power—and that is one of the real dangers.
Where does the Secretary of State envisage the eventual constitutional resting place for a Welsh Assembly? Precisely what is his Department doing when it asks the Cardiff City Council and the tenants of the Temple of Peace to scout around making arrangements for an undebated, unannounced and unknown Assembly? Indeed, I would call it an "unwanted" Assembly, because the Secretary of State has been told just how unwanted it is. That view was expressed by the Chairman of the Mid-Glamorgan County Council during an after-dinner speech, and he seemed to win the approval of his fellow councillors.
The Welsh Assembly is a detraction from the real needs and affairs of Wales.

Mr. Wigley: rose—

Mr. Grist: I shall not give way, because I do not have time. It is almost


beyond belief that when jobs are increasingly in danger, inflation is rampant, the health, education and social services are visibly crumbling, and the country has to go on bended knees to our creditors, we should waste the time and money involved in this devolution argument. It will take up an enormous amount of time in the forthcoming parliamentary Session, and will involve all hon. Members who are present tonight. On my own behalf, I hope that it is a case of
Whom God would destroy He first sends mad.
I hope that the Secreary of State remembers what he demanded of any proposals for devolution when he launched last year's White Paper. Indeed, White Papers on this matter are getting a little thick on the ground. At that time, the Secretary of State laid down four main principles. The first was that the taking of powers from any central body should meet a genuine need. Unless he believes that the Welsh Office is hopelessly inefficient, I cannot see any need for an Assembly.
The second was that any proposals should be based on widespread public support. By now the Secretary of State must realise that he is crying in the wind if he wants to get widespread public support in Wales. He could always look at the recent poll in the Liverpool Daily Post. He could consider the survey of the Kilbrandon Commission and the experience of hon. and right hon. Welsh Members, all of whom could tell him that there is no public demand for this wretched Assembly.
The third principle was that any changes should mark a clear and definite improvement. We shall all wait for proof that there will be a clear and definite improvement. I, for one, think that the Secretary of State and those who think like him will be rather hard pressed to prove anything of the kind. Fourthly, the Secretary of State said that any changes must be designed to provide a stable constitutional framework for the future. We have just reformed local government in Wales. Apparently, we shall have to uproot it if we have an Assembly. Is that providing a stable constitutional framework? I do not believe that it is.
We know from what the hon. Member for Carmarthen (Mr. Evans) has said in the past just how stable he views any

Welsh Assembly. It would just be used as a spring-board for further advances and demands. Unless the Assembly had power to raise money for and to grant money to industry, every setback, and every failure to provide new jobs and employment, would be blamed on the tight-fistedness of this place. Inexorably, the power would have to be handed over little by little, more and more, faster and faster. The aim of people such as the Communist Party and Plaid Cymru is that, with an elected assembly—preferably a legislative assembly—the break-up of the United Kingdom will follow, as surely as night follows day.
I believe that we shall have a long time to look at this proposal, but it ought to be stated that in the Chamber at the moment there would be a clear majority against an elected Welsh Assembly.
It is clear that parliamentary time will be taken up fruitlessly debating something which may tear our country apart. It is sad, and it is certainly unnecessary. I hope that when the matter reaches the Floor of the House there will, so to speak, be hands across the Chamber in the service of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — QUESTION OF PRIVILEGE

Mr. Speaker: I ask the House to forgive me for intervening, but in the circumstances I must do so now.
I wish to inform the House that I have given further consideration to the question of Privilege raised by the right hon. Member for Farnham (Mr. Macmillan) and the hon. and learned Member for Dover and Deal (Mr. Rees). The suggestion that information about the deliberations of the Select Committee on a Wealth Tax was disclosed during the course of yesterday evening before the Committee had laid its Report on the Table is something into which I must look further.
Hon. Members have complied with the requirement of raising this matter at the earliest opportunity. The imminence of prorogation means that I shall not be able to give my ruling until early in the next Session. Under our new procedure, however, the Committee of Privileges remains in being and, should this matter be referred to it, it will be able to proceed


with its investigation without having to wait for the nomination of a new Committee.

Oral Answers to Questions — WELSH AFFAIRS

7.22 p.m.

Mr. Donald Anderson: I should like to look beyond the immediate problems of unemployment, inflation and the cut-back in public services in Wales to the future of economic and political structures in the Principality.
First, concerning economic structures in Wales, by far the most important development in this Session has been the creation of the Welsh Development Agency. It has been welcomed by right hon. and hon. Members on both sides of the House. But the big question which remains is this—if it is an Agency, what are the goals at which it is aiming? Is there a coherent strategy behind the Agency setting out the particular targets? If the targets, the goals, are unclear, the methods for achievement will be unclear. There is no evidence which I can see of any coherent plan. I suggest that a considerable degree of thought needs to be given to a plan for the Principality for the next quarter of a century.
The basic facts are already known. We know, for example, the number of school leavers in the Principality in 1990. We know the scale of environmental dereliction and what needs to be done in that context. We need to co-ordinate groupings of industry in a more coherent and planned way. We need constellations of industry in the same broad area. We need a plan to get industries downstream from major manufacturing units. For example, we need to get downstream the aluminium manufacturing industry in North Wales and our steel manufacturing industry in South Wales. I look in vain for any coherent strategy which will indicate to the Welsh Development Agency its goals over the years to come. So much for the broader economic structures.
I make one brief comment only on the steel debate which has been raised by my hon. Friend the Member for Gower (Mr. Davies). Unfortunately, the debate has been bedevilled, even in this House, by the confrontation between Shotton and

Port Talbot. The case for Port Talbot stands on its own. It depends on the international market for steel products and on the competitiveness of the United Kingdom's steel industry in the world as a whole. The delay has been costly, as was pointed out by the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist). There are substantial social effects in both North and South Wales. If this country is to be in business—the Prime Minister's theme at the Lord Mayor's banquet—we must build on the kind of success which we see in Port Talbot with its locational and industrial base advantages.
The delay which has taken place has in many ways harmed Wales in the sense that the demand figures for steel production have now been scaled down. That portion of the cake which has been allocated leaves an even smaller portion for allocation between the various Welsh claims which are yet to come. But let us have a decision soon on steel investment in Port Talbot for Britain's sake.
I turn now to the future political structure. Here I follow the hon. Member for Cardiff, North. The view of many Welsh Members is that over past months the mood in Wales has swung substantially against devolution. Clearly, it is premature, in advance of the White Paper and the many opportunities of which we shall no doubt take advantage, to go at length into the whole question of devolution. But there is a substantial groundswell in the Welsh people as a whole and in the Welsh Labour movement. As a party and Government, we refuse to acknowledge that groundswell at our peril.
Many Welsh people fear that this is a staging post on the way to total separatism. They fear that they cannot meet the groundswell against bureaucracy by the creation of yet another layer of bureaucracy, particularly when the experience of local government is proving so disquieting in Wales.
There is also the feeling that, like it or not, we are being pulled along in the groundswell behind Scotland. Scotland may have its own special problems. We ask only that Wales be looked at on its own merits and in relation to the views of the Welsh people on this problem.
I would search in vain for many separatists in my constituency. My own correspondence and, I gather, that of


other hon. Members from all parts of Wales reflects that growing feeling that the Welsh people are now waking up and asking questions which have not been asked before and which, as yet, have not been answered.
We ignore the views on the Welsh people at our peril. If we go ahead willy-nilly without taking heed of their views, I fear for the future within Wales.

7.28 p.m.

Mr. Michael Roberts: I thank the Government for providing time for this resumed debate on Welsh affairs. It would be churlish to dwell on the Government's original reluctance to provide adequate time. I prefer to pay tribute to them for their prompt response to our criticism and Early-Day Motion No. 710. As a result, we have had a good and worthwhile debate.
Not surprisingly, the issue of devolution and a devolved Assembly has been raised. This subject will be increasingly discussed in the next few months. I agree with the hon. Member for Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson) that so far not many people in Wales have considered this topic seriously in depth.
On the subject of proposed devolution, I make two appeals which I consider to be in the best interests of the people of the Principality. I appeal to the media for accuracy in the reporting of information and a sense of perspective in the emphasis given to devolution. Listening to the BBC or HTV or reading the Western Mail, one can be forgiven for forming the impression that devolution and a devolved Assembly are the burning topics of conversation in Wales. That is not so. When we congregate outside our churches and chapels after Sunday service the devolved Assembly hardly gets a mention. In the clubs and coffee houses devolution does not dominate the conversation. It is very low down on the agenda in Wales; so low that for the vast majority it is never reached, and until now it has been a very damp squib indeed.
Although some people—and I recognise this—have been debating devolution with relish and enthusiasm for years, the Welsh people have not spoken on this matter yet. No doubt they will, and when they do it will be with a clear voice.
It is important that the debate in the Principality is conducted fairly and without rancour.

Mr. Leo Abse: In view of the hon. Gentleman's comments about the Assembly, with which I totally agree, may I ask whether the Conservative Party has considered whether the issue should be decided by a referendum in view of the fact that so many parts of Wales clearly wish to express an opinion? It is an opinion that will undoubtedly lead to the rejection of the view that there should be a form of devolution, which could lead to separatism.

Mr. Roberts: I have never considered a referendum to be the only way in which people can make their views known. Indeed, I opposed the referendum earlier this year when it was put to the House.
Of the Western Mail I would say that the least we can expect, as it treats devolution as a matter of prime importance, is that it will do its homework and get its facts right. As recently as a fortnight ago, in a major feature entitled "Count Down on Devolution", the paper listed with photographs, all the members of the Labour Party and stated, ex cathedra, where they stood on devolution. The hon. Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) was depicted as a strong supporter of devolution and the paper ominously reported that "he would probably go further". I have always thought that the hon. Member for Caerphilly would go further, but I never thought that he would go in that direction, and I gather from tonight's debate that I am right. I have no doubt that, unfortunately, my appeal to the media to report accurately will fall on deaf ears. They will continue to project their prejudices, and the Welsh people will continue to ignore their conclusions.
I hope, however, that my appeal to the hon. Member for Caernarvon—I informed him that I would raise this matter in today's debate, but he told me that he could not be present—to show some generosity and a little humility will not be rejected out of hand. The hon. Gentleman castigates, in grossly immoderate terms, all those who do not share his particular and minority views on Wales. He and his party show no understanding of those who think of themselves as British as well as Welsh. He said the


other day that "we disgust him". I can only say that I am sorry that he finds so many of his countrymen disgusting. For hundreds of thousands of Welshmen—I believe the vast majority of them—great British institutions, such as the Palace of Westminster as the seat of Government, are thought of with affection and determined loyalty. That Plaid Cymru cannot recognise that this fundamental fact shows how remote it is from the majority of the people of Wales. A reasonable response from Plaid Cymru would ensure a much fairer and better debate, and I hope that its members will show themselves big enough to measure up to events.
On the subject of devolution, I have one further observation to make. The Labour Party is clearly divided on this issue. There is nothing dishonourable in such division. It is, however, perhaps ironic to reflect that most of those who beavered away enthusiastically in 1970, 1971 and 1972 and committed the Parliamentary Labour Party to the policy that it now supports are no longer with us. It could be said that those who sold the pass lost their seats.
I do not believe that the Welsh people have yet spoken on devolution. He would be a rash person indeed who would assume that there will be an overwhelming demand for any sort of Assembly at all.

Mr. Wigley: On the question of having any sort of Assembly at all, may I ask the hon. Gentleman whether the Conservative Party still stands by the policy which it advocated a short time ago and which the hon. Member for Conway (Mr. Roberts) projected on television a week last Monday night, namely, to have an indirectly-elected Assembly, and not a directly-elected one?

Mr. Roberts: At the General Election we said that we stood for an indirectly-elected council which would be there in an advisory capacity. I think that as the debate continues the people of Wales will tell us exactly what they want and I am sure that we, as politicians, will take note of their demands.
I want to say a brief word about education and refer to the way in which our comprehensive schools have developed in Wales over the past few years. I pay tribute to the enormous achievements of

those schools and to the teachers who have worked so hard to achieve so much. They have come under considerable strain, not least the strain that has been imposed upon them by the raising of the school leaving age. It would be foolish to ignore the fact that one pupil in six plays truant in our major industrial conurbations, and I suspect that that is an understatement of the true position.
I believe that there is one way in which our comprehensive schools could be improved enormously, and that is if they were reduced in size. I think that this is probably the last opportunity that we are likely to get to make these schools, which, after all, are part of our pattern of education in South, North and Mid-Wales, work effectively. The opportunity comes with the falling of the birth rate. Figures for ILEA show that it will have 2,600 spare places for its children in 1977 because of a declining population. In Cardiff, a survey carried out by the director of the former Cardiff authority shows that admissions will drop from 4,631 in 1976 to 3,504 in 1984, a drop of more than 20 per cent.
What I am afraid will happen is that where a whole new area is developed, instead of developing a comprehensive school for that area to serve that neighbourhood, to serve that community, vacant places in adjoining areas will be used and children will be bussed out to another area. This is not an attack on the principle of bussing. What I am urging on the Minister is that if we can use this opportunity of a declining birthrate to establish smaller comprehensive schools we shall be grasping the chance to make those schools work more effectively. I believe that this will probably be our last opportunity so to do.
Finally, I turn to the economic outlook facing the Principality. Reference has been made to advance factories—and the Secretary of State for Wales referred to this matter on 23rd October. On that occasion the Secretary of State announced 22 new advance factories, but refused to respond to an intervention asking how many existing factories were empty. It is a sad reflection of the situation when we discover the number of such factories that are empty. Three factories have been empty since 1973—one from 1971 and two from 1970. Nineteen of the


26 factories standing empty today have been empty throughout 1975.
Negotiations are taking place to find tenants for nine of those factories, and we all hope that the news will be favourable so that as a result the number of vacancies will drop considerably. However, empty factories stand as a silent stricture on the Government's economic policy. It is no good people saying, "Because we are building advance factories, all is well with the Principality". It does not solve our problems when those factories stand empty. The list covers the whole of the Principality, including Pembroke Dock and Llandrindod Wells.
The economic picture that faces the Principality is grim, and it was fairly summarised in the excellent speech of my hon. Friend the Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower). Industrial production has fallen to the level of 1967 and, as my hon. Friend the Member for Pembroke (Mr. Edwards) pointed out, after 19 months of Labour Government we have the production of a two-day week achieved in five. When proper consideration has been given to the effects of world recession, when due recognition has been made of the international problems facing the Government, it is hardly a success story for the Secretary of State. His period of office has witnessed an alarming decline in Welsh industry and the strength of the Welsh economy.
I wish briefly to refer to how this decline has affected people in Wales. I wish first to refer to the small business men—the self-employed. Wales has a large number of small manufacturing businesses, small retail businesses, corner shops and men and women engaged in service industries. They make an enormous contribution to the economy and the quality of life of the people of Wales. Today those people, who make such a large contribution to their communities, consider themselves to be under siege. They face high rates, multi-rate VAT—

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Alec Jones): The Tories introduced it.

Mr. Roberts: They also face increased pension contributions and other burdens that threaten to squeeze them out of existence. I have not attempted to blame

any one Government for the situation. I believe that the people concerned feel that they are under siege and are threatened by all these problems, including the imposition of capital transfer tax. When trade unionists take industrial action the Labour Party tends, and rightly so, to look with understanding at the cause of their grievances. The self-employed are not normally militant in our society, but they are up in arms at the present situation. I hope that the Government will look with understanding at those people who are victims of inflation. I hope that remedial measures will be taken before irreparable damage is done to those people and to the people who work for them. If no action is taken, they will swell still further the ranks of the unemployed.
Finally, I should like to say something about the unemployment problem in Wales. We have not since 1946 suffered such unemployment as we are now experiencing. There were 70,000 unemployed in Wales in the month of October, and that is a huge sum in terms of human degradation and misery and of lost potential and opportunity. For the school leaver without a job it is a depressing and dangerous frustrating introduction to adult life. I shall spare Labour Members by not quoting the words they used against the Conservative Government when those Members were in Opposition and when much lower unemployment figures afflicted the Principality. But however loud their protestations of horror and revulsion at unemployment, they cannot evade their responsibility in part for the unemployment we now suffer.
We must remember the Prime Minister's words in "A Policy for Survival":
One man's pay rise is not only another man's price rise: it might also cost him his own job—or his neighbour's job.
The Prime Minister's words did not achieve validity on the day on which that document was published. Those words represent an economic truth that had validity throughout the period of the wage bonanza, fuelled for party political purposes by the Labour Party. To that extent the Labour Party is directly responsible for some of the unemployment in Wales. The people of Wales will see that it is made to accept its responsibilities.

7.48 p.m.

The Under-Secretary of State for Wales (Mr. Barry Jones): I agree with the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West (Mr. Roberts) that we have had an informed and reasoned debate. I thought that the hon. Gentleman, possibly for reasons of time, was uncharacteristically restrained tonight. When he seeks to lay strictures upon the Government's record over a period of 19 months, I must retort that I regard that record as a good one. I think that we took on a miserable inheritance from the previous Government and, what is more, my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State for Wales has under his belt the Welsh Development Agency and the Land Authority for Wales.
The hon. Member for Barry (Sir R. Gower)—who apologised to me for having to leave before the end of the debate—mentioned in a thoughtful speech the arrangement of business in the House. The House knows that those arrangements are a matter for my right hon. Friend the Lord President of the Council, and the delay on 23rd October was a most creditable delay, since the debate followed proceedings on the Welsh Development Agency Bill which was before this House for 36 hours in all. Furthermore, we have also debated the Welsh provisions of the Community Land Bill and have attended a detailed programme of Welsh Grand Committee meetings—by my reckoning five such meetings. On only one occasion since the change of Government has the time allocated to Welsh Oral Questions been insufficient. That is surely a sufficient reply to the hon. Member for Barry and also to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty (Mr. Kinnock) who raised some sincere matters in this connection.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned the Rosedale Industries. I said that I hoped to answer his query. My hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery (Mr. Thomas) has also mentioned this matter. I am delighted to be able to tell the House that this situation has now been resolved. Lin Pac Containers Ltd., a group based in Lincolnshire but already operating two factories at Cwmbran, is acquiring the Bedwas and Crumlin undertakings, and the Government will be providing financial assist-

ance under the provisions of of Section 7 of the Industry Act.

Mr. Jeffrey Thomas: Will the Under-Secretary accept that the whole community in North Gwent will be most grateful for what he has just said?

Mr. Jones: I am grateful for that interventon. The Government will provide financial assistance under the provisions of Section 7 of the Industry Act. I want to pay tribute to all who have been involved in achieving this welcome outcome, in particular, to the efforts which have been made by my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty and my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Abertillery, in whose constituencies the two plants are located. They fought like tigers for their constituents' jobs. I am sure that many families in those areas who were worried are now relieved.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty made a cry about the refurbishment of the former Corah factory at Aberbargoed. I shall write to him with the information on this as soon as possible.
The hon. Member for Merioneth (Mr. Thomas) devoted some of his remarks to North Wales, an area that, like him, I know well. Some parts I know better, and in other parts I have a better welcome. Not many months after we had been in office a large area of Gwynedd was upgraded to special development area status. We have also sharply increased the rate of regional employment premium, which was of substantial benefit to all development and special development areas, in our efforts to combat the evils of unemployment.
Despite the shortage of resources for the health service, we have been determined to preserve the place of the Bangor District General Hospital in the building programme. This is a £12 million scheme. Tenders for the first phase have now been invited, with a closing date of mid-November. It is hoped that building will begin early in 1976. This information will be useful to my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey (Mr. Hughes), as well as to other hon. Members in the area.
We are pressing ahead with the Britannia Bridge scheme for a second road crossing of the Menai, and it is


hoped that work on the approach roads will commence next spring.
North Wales has done well out of the major advance factory programmes we have announced since coming into office. Including the announcements made by my right hon. and learned Friend the Secretary of State, on 23rd October, no fewer than 16 advance factories, amounting to 205,000 sq. ft. in all, have been allocated to a variety of locations in North Wales. Advance purchase of land for possible future factory construction is being undertaken at Caernarvon, Llandegai, Llanrwst and Rhyl. Nine Development Commission factories, totalling 34,000 sq. ft. have also been allocated at Penrhyndeudraeth, Bala, Machynlleth, Tywyn and Blaenau Ffestiniog. This is no mean record, given the nature and difficulties of these times.
Hon. Members representing North Wales constituencies may be interested in the Dinorwic CEGB pumped storage scheme. This important project, which already provides employment for 780 people of whom over 70 per cent. are local, has a long history. I remind the House of the able sponsorship of the North Wales Hydro Electric Power Bill by the then hon. Member for Caernarvon, now Lord Goronwy-Roberts, and by others of my hon. Friends, particularly my right hon. Friend the Member for Anglesey.
As has been reported in the Press, the CEGB has asked my right hon. Friend the Secretary of State for Energy for his approval for the next stage of the work. There are a number of detailed matters to be resolved, but my right hon. Friend is dealing with them urgently, as he is as conscious as I am of the importance of the project. There is certainly no threat to its future.

Mr. Wigley: Is the hon. Gentleman aware that this part of the contract has now been waiting in the Department for seven weeks to be cleared? Under the Act of 1919, which is incorporated into the 1973 Act, it is normally cleared in three to four weeks. There is grave concern in Llanberis, because jobs may be threatened, due to this delay. Will the hon. Gentleman give an assurance that the delay will not be for much longer?

Mr. Jones: I have said that the business is being tackled urgently.
I turn to the steel industry in Wales, because the hon. Member for Flint, West (Sir A. Myer), my hon. Friends the Members for Gower (Mr. Davies) and Swansea, East (Mr. Anderson), the hon and learned Member for Montgomery (Mr. Hooson) and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North (Mr. Grist) have all made contributions on this important topic for Wales.
I know that many hon. Members—no one more than myself—are anxious to see the vitally important issue of the British Steel Corporation's plans for Port Talbot and Shotton resolved. It is, however, because of its very importance, and the concern which is felt about the social and economic consequences for North-East Wales of any cessation of steel-making at Shotton, that the Government have been determined to undertake a thorough study of all the factors involved before coming to a decision.
For this reason my noble Friend the Minister of State for Industry, Lord Beswick, decided in August to ask the BSC to prepare a full evaluation of the proposal which had been put forward for the installation of a new steelmaking plant at Shotton with a capacity of 1·8 million tonnes per annum. Lord Beswick has now received the BSC's reply, and it is under consideration. It has been made available to the trade unions at Shotton, and they will be given a further opportunity to put their own views forward.
I cannot say definitely when a decision will be reached, but a number of hon. Members will know that Lord Beswick recently repeated to the West Wales Steel Development Committee his hope that this would be possible by the end of the year.
My hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty mentioned coal. Some concern has been expressed about the degree of stocking of coal in South Wales and at the two North Wales pits.
Although the demand from the CEGB for South Wales coal has been low, the current level of stocks of all coals in South Wales, including stocks at power stations, is generally lower than in 1974 or 1973. Welsh power stations are, of course, specially designed to burn Welsh coal because of its low volatility. Experiments have, however, taken place in burning Welsh coal at a power station in


England, namely, Fiddlers Ferry, which was not specially designed for this. The results with South Wales coal were not regarded as satisfactory, and the CEGB has no plans for continuing with this.
Queries have been raised recently about the extent of the underground reserves of coal at Point of Air, in North Wales. On this, I understand that the known reserves are regarded as adequate for some years, and an investigation is now taking place near Talacre to establish whether there are more extensive reserves. The drilling that is now taking place in the area is to establish the fault pattern, and is part of the normal programme of research and exploration.
The hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West, my hon. Friend the Member for Swansea, East and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North spoke in detail on devolution. So, also, did the hon. Member for Flint, West, who made a sharp flick or two. My hon. Friend the Member for Caerphilly (Mr. Evans) let fly a strong and typical blast in the direction of these devolution proposals. It is good to see him back in the Chamber, in good health and taking part very obviously in all our debates. I would point out, however, that the Government do not exactly agree with the statements that he makes about devolution. I am sure that the House will not expect me to go into detail tonight on this subject because in the very near future the Government will be presenting a White Paper setting out our detailed proposals for Wales and for Scotland. I am deeply aware of the great interest which hon. Members in all parts of the House take in this very important subject, but I do not think that at this stage in this Session it would be for me to go into greater details.
The hon. Member for Merioneth put some rather suspicious questions about housing. He knows that I have not the time to make the full response I should like to make to him and other hon. Members. However, he should know that as a result of the announcement on 31st October, by my right hon. Friend the Chancellor of the Exchequer, of the injection of an additional £30 million to alleviate unemployment in the construction industry—of which the Welsh share is £2·5 million—it has now been possible

to permit a limited relaxation. The money will all be applied to improvement work, half going to local authority houses and half to the private sector. In selecting this as our priority, we had in mind that improvement work is labour-intensive, so that the greatest possible benefit will be secured in employment terms.
In the public sector, local authorities have, in consequence, received fresh allocations for council house improvements, or, in certain cases, major repair work. These cover the period to 31st March 1977 and will be supplemented from 1st April next by normal allocations, which we shall be able to make for the 1976–77 financial year.
I can tell the hon. Member for Merioneth that we are already well advanced in discussions with the Council for the Principality on the way in which our resources for 1976–77 should be applied. Obviously, the money must go to the areas of greatest need.
As regards privately-owned houses, the additional money which is to become available has been allocated so that local authorities will now be able to resume a limited amount of lending to cover that part of the cost of improvement work which is left after payment of grant. These grants take care of 50 per cent. of the cost, but this still leaves a substantial sum for the householder to find. Many have to look to their local authority to help them with a loan.
The housing action areas programme is going ahead quietly and effectively. So far, 16 housing action areas, containing 5,784 dwellings, have been declared by 12 local authorities. The actual levels of new house building—the most crucial element of all—show a marked improvement, with over 11,000 new houses being provided in Wales this year. I say, therefore, that the record of the Welsh Office is more than good in this sector of activity.
The hon. Member for Merioneth and the hon. Member for Cardiff, North-West both raised the subject of education. I have little time to take up the points made by the Opposition spokesman about the raising of the school leaving age and about truancy, which in themselves, perhaps, would form the subjects of debates for many hours. As a Department, however, we have maintained a very substan-


tial programme. We have allocated about £33 million for the years 1974–77, and the bulk of the expenditure this year is in the secondary sector. There is to be a new secondary school for Mynydd Isa, and major extensions at Hawarden High School, in the county of Clwyd. There is a further instalment of the new Bodedern Secondary School in Gwynedd. There is to be a new secondary school in Bishopston, in West Glamorgan, and a major extension to the Llanharri bilingual secondary school in Glamorgan.
The major priority in Wales is the 100 per cent. comprehensive secondary schooling system. We are now proud to say that already 84 per cent. of our children are educated in secondary schools which are comprehensive. Moreover, the Government, to indicate their commitment to comprehensive schooling, have allocated specifically, for the first time, £2 million for secondary school building.
In another sector, many children suffer a mental or physical handicap. As a Government, we refuse to neglect these children; nor shall we disregard the real worries and the cares of their parents. It is a matter of real regret to me that this sector has been overlooked in years gone by and that we have considerable leeway to make up. For the years 1974–77, the Government have committed £3 million for special allocations for special schools in Wales. In the current financial year we have allocated £1¼ million for the nursery schools programme.
The hon. Member for Flint, West, the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and the hon. Member for Merioneth raised matters concerning the National Health Service in Wales. I have but very limited time to reply to their serious questions. We may face a nil growth situation. We run the health service in Wales for the benefit of the consumer, but we are being driven deeper and deeper into the anguished argument about priorities. There will have to be careful but very painful adjustments, but in working these out we must never lose sight of our manifesto commitments. We shall safeguard provision for the elderly—those aged over 75—and we shall continue to care for the mentally ill and the mentally handicapped, who, in the generations gone by, have never had anything approaching a fair deal. It is our

intention to commission the new hospitals at Rhyl, Withybush and Merthyr.
Some would say that the health service in Wales may be reaching the point of collapse, but that statement runs far ahead of the Welsh evidence. The position in Wales is not as bad as it is sometimes made out to be, possibly because of the tradition, in the valleys, of social service and helping one's neighbour.
Our opponents may care to present a catalogue of difficulties. Problems there certainly are, yet they are not problems of our making, as a Government. We have run into them, but we have shown that we do not intend to run away from them. As my hon. Friend the Member for Gower implied in his wise speech, a Government cannot change conditions overnight when those conditions are in part a product of our dependent relationship with the world economy and in part the product of past under-investment in industrial capacity. I think that we must now take steps to establish a strong economic base upon which we can build a society in which men and women in Wales can enjoy the fullness of life. I say to the hon. and learned Member for Montgomery and to my hon. Friend the Member for Bedwellty that this is what the Government are doing by directing savings into industry in order to create a strengthened economy based on the efficient use of our resources of people and of skills. I claim that the Government have achieved considerable support in Wales for their policy, and that the people of Wales, and, in particular, the people of our older industrial townships, know that there is no practical alternative.
The ends which this policy seeks to achieve cannot be secured at a stroke. Neither can they be achieved without constraints elsewhere. Wealth must be created before it can be spent, and if industry must be a first charge on our savings for the years immediately ahead, it follows that the increased industrial budget must grow at the expense of other budgets. This we accept.
I understand that distinguished visitors are approaching, and I am coming to the conclusion of my remarks. The importance of the Government's industrial policy is very real in its direct effects for the


whole community and as the express condition permitting the achievement of social aims at a later stage. It is very encouraging that at Chequers last week, as my hon. Friend the Member for Gower said, the TUC and the CBI gave their endorsement to the Government's broad approach to these crucial issues. We, as a Government, have set our faces against the introduction of economic policies that do not have a wide measure of support from those on both sides of industry on whom rests the main task of seeing that such policies succeed. Political leadership in a democracy is about consent—

Mr. Hooson: I hope that the hon. Gentleman will not conclude his remarks without dealing with agriculture, which is vitally important.

Mr. Jones: I am always happy to respond to interventions that are well intended, and on time. I have taken particular interest in the problems of dairy farming in Wales, as I am sure the hon. and learned Gentleman does in a constituency such as his. We have recently taken action to assist the milk producers, and in doing so we have had to have regard to the overriding priority of bringing inflation under control. Nevertheless we should not lose sight of the fact that the guaranteed price of milk has been increased five times since the Government took office 20 months ago. It had then been fixed at an average of 26·27p per gallon for 1974–75, and the average price for the whole of the 1975–76 period is now 37·04p per gallon.

Mr. Bob Cryer: Will my hon. Friend explain to the House in greater detail the importance of increasing investment in industry in Wales to ensure the potential that we want to harness in the future?

Mr. Jones: Perhaps my hon. Friend would first allow me to conclude my remarks on dairy farming—although, in any event, I fear that I am about to be interrupted by distinguished visitors.
As I was saying, political leadership in a democracy is about consent. We should never lose sight of this fact, as our predecessors sometimes seem to do.
In a moment, I suspect, we shall hear a knocking on the door of this honour-

able House, It is appropriate that a Welsh debate should end this Session of Parliament, to which Welsh Members have contributed throughout the Session and, indeed, throughout history. I have good reason to believe, Mr. Speaker, that you yourself, as a Welshman, in the Chair and out of it, have made sterling contributions to this House over the years. Wales is pre-eminent in its contribution to the well-being of the United Kingdom.

Oral Answers to Questions — ROYAL ASSENT

8.14 p.m.

Message to attend the Lords Commissioners;

The House went:—and, having returned:

Mr. Speaker (in the Clerk's place at the Table): I have to acquaint the House that the House has been to the House of Peers where a Commission under the Great Seal was read, authorising the Royal Assent to the following Acts:

1. Inheritance (Provision for Family and Dependants) Act 1975
2. Iron and Steel Act 1975
3. Sex Discrimination Act 1975
4. Recess Elections Act 1975
5. Housing Finance (Special Provisions) Act 1975
6. Industry Act 1975
7. Scottish Development Agency Act 1975
8. Welsh Development Agency Act 1975
9. Employment Protection Act 1975
10. Children Act 1975
11. Cinematograph Films Act 1975
12. Petroleum and Submarine Pipe lines Act 1975
13. Policyholders Protection Act 1975
14. Local Land Charges Act 1975
15. Community Land Act 1975
16. Airports Authority Act 1975
17. Port Askaig Pier Order Confirmation Act 1975
18. Mallaig Harbour Order Confirmation Act 1975
19. Royal College of Surgeons of Edinburgh Order Confirmation Act 1975
20. Brookwood Cemetery Act 1975
21. Shard Bridge Act 1975

Oral Answers to Questions — PROROGATION

HER MAJESTY'S MOST GRACIOUS SPEECH

Mr. Speaker: I have further to acquaint the House that the Lord High Chancellor, one of the High Commissioners, delivered Her Majesty's Most Gracious Speech to both Houses of Parliament, in pursuance of Her Majesty's Command, as follows:

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: It was with great pleasure that My Husband and I visited Bermuda, Barbados, the Bahamas, Mexico, Jamaica, Hong Kong and Japan. We were very pleased to welcome to this country King Carl XVI Gustaf of Sweden.
My Government welcomed Papua New Guinea's decision to join the Commonwealth on independence.
I was pleased to be in Kingston for the important and useful meeting of Commonwealth Heads of Government. Since then good progress has been made in pursuing the far-reaching proposals on world trade in commodities which My Government put forward at that meeting.
My Government have participated fully in the Seventh Special Session of the United Nations General Assembly which continued its efforts to promote a more just world economic order.
My Government successfully renegotiated the terms of the United Kingdom's membership of the European Economic Community. Their recommendation for continued membership was confirmed by the British people in the Referendum. They have made an important contribution to the evolution of Community policies, particularly those concerning its relations with the rest of the world.
My Government have made a major contribution to the development of detente between East and West and warmly welcome the successful conclusion of the Conference on Security and Co-operation in Europe. Particular efforts have been made to improve bilateral relations and economic co-operation with the Soviet Union and other countries of Eastern Europe.
My Ministers played a constructive rôle in the Geneva Conference which reviewed the operation of the Treaty on the Non-proliferation of Nuclear Weapons.
Following a searching review, and after consultation with our Allies, My Government Slave announced reductions in our defence commitments and forces.
In Rhodesia My Government have sought to bring all sides to an agreement by negotiation.
My Government have continued to seek a political solution to the tragic situation facing the people of Northern Ireland. The Constitutional Convention set up to consider what provision for the government of Northern Ireland is likely to command the most widespread acceptance has recently completed its report. Legislative provision has been made to improve the standards of benefits in Northern Ireland in social security and other fields. The shipbuilders Harland and Wolff have been taken into public ownership.
My Armed Forces and the Royal Ulster Constabulary have continued to perform their difficult duties in Northern Ireland with devotion and with considerable success. An Act has been passed, to come into full effect when reciprocal legislation has been passed in the Republic of Ireland, to enable courts in Northern Ireland to try persons accused of serious crimes of violence in the Republic of Ireland. Following the recommendations of the Gardiner Committee, legislation has been enacted to deal with terrorism in Northern Ireland. Legislation has also been enacted for the prevention of terrorism in the United Kingdom.

Members of the House of Commons: I thank you for the provision which you have made for the honour and dignity of the Crown and for the public services.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: My Government made clear their determination to reduce the rate of inflation. In agreement with the General Council of the Trades Union Congress they initiated measures for securing a voluntary fiat-rate limit on pay increases. The programme of subsidies on basic foods has been continued, to keep down prices


paid by consumers. Grants are being made to encourage the provision of information and help to consumers, by the setting up of consumer advice centres and other means. A National Consumer Council has been established and measures to protect consumers have been passed.
Measures have been taken to stimulate the development of efficient and profitable industry, and of industrial democracy. An Act has been passed to establish a National Enterprise Board to provide for public participation and partnership in industry. A system of planning agreements is also being set up. Development Agencies are being established to pursue similar objectives of economic development and to improve the environment in Scotland and Wales. As part of their programme of industrial support, legislation was passed for My Government to acquire shares in the British Leyland Motor Corporation.
My Government have taken major steps to regulate the production of off-shore petroleum and to ensure that a fair share of the profits accrues to the community. Legislation has been enacted to establish a British National Oil Corporation; to provide for the acquisition and reinstatement of oil sites in Scotland; to regulate the provision of refinery capacity and the construction and use of submarine pipelines; to impose a new tax on the profits from United Kingdom petroleum production; and to close certain loop-holes in the taxation of oil companies. Measures have also been announced for protecting our off-shore interests in peace-time. Legislation has been enacted to permit easier access by the National Coal Board to coal resources.
My Government have published a White Paper setting out guidelines and objectives for domestic agriculture and food production to 1980.
My Government have made clear their intention of using the taxation system to promote greater social and economic equality by the redistribution of wealth as well as income. A comprehensive capital transfer tax on property in place of the estate duty has been introduced. Measures have also been introduced to end abuses arising from the "Lump".
Legislation has been passed to protect and extend the rights of employees and to

establish the Advisory, Conciliation and Arbitration Service on a statutory basis.
The Health and Safety Commission and Executive have been established to secure the health, safety and welfare of persons at work.
Over the past year My Government have taken positive steps to alleviate unemployment and to meet the longer-term need for skilled manpower. They have provided for expansion of the training programmes of the Manpower Services Commission and of industry, and for a job creation scheme to be administered by the Commission. The Employment Services have been strengthened, and a temporary employment subsidy and a recruitment subsidy for unemployed school leavers have been introduced.
An Act has been passed to provide a new and improved earnings-related pension scheme to operate in partnership with good occupational pensions schemes. Measures have also been enacted to increase social security benefits and contributions; to make additional provision for the disabled; and to provide for a system of universal child benefits.
The law on adoption and custody has been reformed and further provisions made for ensuring the welfare of children in care.
Legislation has been enacted to enable My Government to contribute towards the National Coal Board's scheme for compensating existing pneumoconiosis sufferers.
My Government have encouraged the abolition of selection in secondary education and made further progress towards a fully comprehensive system. Steps have been taken to bring to an end the systems of direct-grant schools in England and Wales and grant-aided schools in Scotland. Financial aid to voluntary schools has been increased and the arrangements for mandatory student awards extended.
A substantial increase has been achieved in the provision of new housing, and significant progress has been made towards the stabilisation of mortgage funds. Legislation passed on housing rents and subsidies has restored freedom to local authorities to fix their own reasonable rents.
Legislation has been passed to enable land suitable for development to be


brought into public ownership, so that the community may exercise positive control over the development of land and may enjoy increases in land values arising from its own efforts.
Legislation has been passed to protect policyholders of insurance companies which are unable to meet their liabilities, and to establish the Air Travel Reserve Fund.
Discrimination on grounds of sex has been made unlawful.
Acts have been passed to provide for the safety of spectators at football and other sports grounds, and to facilitate the promotion of lotteries by local authorities, sporting, charitable and cultural organisations.
The Limitation Act and other measures have furthered the progress of law reform, and new arrangements have been made for the administration of criminal justice in Scotland.
Financial provision has been made to assist Opposition parties in carrying out their Parliamentary duties.

My Lords and Members of the House of Commons: I pray that the blessings of Almighty God may attend you.
Then a Commission for proroguing the Parliament was read; after which the Lord Chancellor said:
My Lords and members of the House of Commons:
By virtue of Her Majesty's Commission under the Great Seal, to us and other Lords directed, we do, in Her Majesty's name and in obedience to Her Majesty's Commands, prorogue this Parliament to Wednesday, the nineteenth day of this instant November, to be then here holden; and this Parliament is accordingly prorogued to the nineteenth day of this instant November.

End of the First Session (opened on 22nd October 1974) of the Forty-seventh Parliament of the United Kingdom of Great Britain and Northern Ireland, in the Twenty-fourth Year of the Reign of Her Majesty Queen Elizabeth the Second.